Natural religion insufficient, and Revealed necessary, to man's happiness in his present state : or, a rational enquiry into the principles of the modern deists ... to which is added, an essay on the true grounds of faith

h

I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | |M

Princeton, N. J. * \-^ •

I

From the Executors of the Rev. C. NESBIT, D.D.

Shelf, Section

^ Book, N«

5rr

'c>-

Natural Religion inrufficient, and Revealed neceifarv,
to Man's Rappinefs ia his Prefent State :

o R^ A

RATIONAL ENQUIPJf

INTO THE

principles

MODErWdEISTS;

\y H E & fe I N

15 LARGELY DISCOVERED THEIR UTTER. INSUFFICIENCY

TO ANSWER THE GREAT ENDS OF RELIGION, AND

THE WEAKNESS OF THEIR PLEADINGS FOR THE

SUFFICIENCY OF NATURR's LIGHT

TO ETERNAL HAPPINESS :

AND PARTECULARLY

The Writings of the late learned Lord Herbert, the great Patron

of Delfm, to wir, his Books ^e Veritatey de Religkne Geuti'

iiuvh and Religio Laicij In fo far as they afiert Nature's

Light able to conducl lis to future Bleflednefs,

are confide red, and fully anfv/eied.

TO WHICH IS ADDED, AN

ESSAY ON THE TRUE GROUND OF FAITH.

BY THE LA;rE REVFRFND

Mr. THOMAS^H a LY burton,

Profeflbr of Divinity in the Univerfity of St. Andre-: s.

A fcorncr feeketh wifdoni and findeth it not: but knowledge is eafy imto biiu

that underftandeth. pRov. xiv. 6.

If any man will do his will, he Poall know of the dct^lrine, whether it be of
God, or whether I fpeak of myfelf. John vii. 17-

Solis r.ojfc Dsos (U" cxli numina vobis^
Aiit [oils nefcire, datum. Lucan. de Druid.

PHILADELPHIA:

POINTED BY HOGAN& M'ELROYi'ii^.li NORTH THIRD-STREET,*
And fold by A. Cunningham, Wafhingron, (Venn.) A- M'Donald, Nor-
th umber land ; C.Davis, New-Ycivk; and by J. M'Cx-tli.och, tfnd
the PubliHievs, Philadelphia.

1798.

r

t

g^..— i_^— --J, JL^^-^ 5===»r.i=te==i==.-===a===-?^

PREFACE,

THE God of glory hath not left himfelf without a
witnefs ; all his'works do, after theii manner de-
clare his glory. Aj^ now the beajis^ and they JJ:)all teach
thee ; and the fowls of the air^ and they Jhall tell thee :
or fpeak to the earthy and it Jhalll teach thee ; and the
Jifhes of the fea jhall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not
in all thefe^ that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?
Job xii. 7, 8, 9. Moreover it hath plcafed him to
inftamp upon the confciences ot men, fuch deep im-
preflions of his being and glory, that all the powers
and fubtilry of hell, "fhall never be able to eradicate
them : Though, alas ! through a cuftom of fin, and
efpecially againit much light and convidion, the con-
fciences of many are debauched in thefe dregs of time,
to an obliterating of thefe impreffions, which otherwife
•would have been ftrong and vivid. The principles of
moral equity carry fuch an evidence in their natiire,
and are alfo accompanied with fo much of binding
force upon the confcitnce, that their obligation on ra-
tional creatures hath a moil refplendent clearnefs, and
fills the little world with fuch a llrength, and efficacy
of truth, as far furpalTeth the plained theoretical prin-
ciples.

IV

PREFACE.

ciples. That one maxim, Mattb. vii. 12. Luke vi. 3.
therefore all things ivhatfoe'vcr ye mould that men jhould
do to you, do ye even fo to them ; th?At one niaximj I faVj
(to pafs otberij) was matter of fo much v/onder to fome
of the moil polite heathens, that they knew not wel!
how to exprefs their fenfe of the truth and glory of
it ; they thought it worthy to be engraven with letters
of gold, upon the frontifpieces of their mod magni-
ficent ftruclures ; an agreeable and fpeaking evidence
of its having been imprinted in foaie meafure upon
their hearts. Neverthelefs, all thefe, though fweet,
ilrong, and convincing notices of a Deity, do yet
evaniih as faint glimmerings, when compared to that
ftamp of divine authority, which our great and alone
Lawgiver has deeply imprinted upon the fcriptures of
truth, Pfal, xix. 7. The taw of the Lord is perfed:^ con-
verting the foul : the icftlmony cf the Lord is fure^ ma".
king wife the fimple^ &c. I enter not upon this large
theme, which great men hsive treated to excellent pur-
pofe ; I only reprefent very ihortlVj that the fliipendous
account w-e have in thefe fcripture, of moral equity in
its full compafs, comprifed even in ten words, that
wonderful account, I fay, proclaimeth its Author with
io much of convincing evidence, and fuch drains of
glory, as i cannot poUibly clothe with words. The
greatcit men among the heathen nations, have given
the higheil accounts of their accompiiihments by fram-
ing laws; but beddes the palling v/eaknefs of their
performances, when viewed in a true light, the choicefl
of them all have a great deal of iniquity inlaid with
them : but all here iliineth with the glory o^ a Deity*
Every duty is plainly contained within thefe fmail boun-
daries, and all concerns thereof in heart and way, are
fet down fo punctually, and fo fully cleared in the ex-
pofiticn which the Lav/giver himfelf has given of his
own laws, that nothing is wanting. Heie aifo are all

the'

PREFACE, V

the myftsnes of iniquity ia the heart fo clearly and
fully detected, thefe evils alfo purfiied to their mod
latent fources, and to the grand ipring of them ail, viz.
the corruption of our nature, and in fo very few words,
with fo much of (liining evidence and power, that no
iudicious and fpber perfon can deny that the finger of
God is there, unlefs he offer the moil daring violence
to his own confcience. And vhat fliali I fay of the
glorious contrivance of falvation, through the Lord
jrsus our only Redeemer ? Should I touch at the
ground-work thereof in the eternal counfel of the ador-
able Trinity, and the feveral dilplays of it, until at
length the complete piirchafe was made in the ful-
iiefs of tioie ; and if 1 fhould but glance at the feve-
ral firokes of omnipotent power, and rich mercy
through Chrifl, by vi^hich the purchafed falvation is ef-
fedually applied to every elect perfon, I would enter
upon a neld from which I could not quickly or eafiiy
get off. All that I adventure to fay is, that the difco-
veries of a Deity in each ilep thereof, are fo relucent
and full of glory, that the being of the material light
under a meridian fun, without the interpofition of a
cloud, may as well be denied, as thefe great truths can
be difov/ned. Beyond all manner of doubt, they con-
tain matter of much higher, and more glorious evidence,
ijpon the minds of all thofe whofe eyes the god of this
world hath not blinded, (2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. John i. 5.
Deut. xxix. 4.) Yet ah! mid-day clearnefs is mid-
night darknefs to thofe who have not eyes. But not to
infill : If v»'e add to all thefe, the full hiftory of the heart
of man, in the depths of wickednefs contained in that
great abyfs, together with the feveral eruptions thereof,
both open and violent, as alfo fubtile and covered, to-
gether with all the engines of temptations for fetting
it to work, and keeping it flill bufy ; if, I fay, the per-
fect account of thefe things which is given in the word,

be

VI PREFACE.

be ferioufly pondered, who can efcape the convidion,
that He, and He only who formed tiie Spirit within
him, could have given fuch a dilpiay. From all this,
I would bewail, were it poflibic, with tears of blood,
ihe blafphenious wickednefs oi thole, who, from the
grciTeft darknefs and ignorance, oppofe, malign, and
deride fuch great and high things. But it is enough;
zvlfdo?n is jujiified of all her children^ Matth. xi. 19.
The worthy and now glorified author of this work, had
a plentiful meaiure, beyond many, of the fureft: and
fweeteit knowledge of theie matters : his foul, (may I
fo exprefs it) was cad into the blefled mould of gof-
pal truih. Wno is a teacher like unto God ! Sure an
enlightening work, by his word and Spirit upon the
foul, filleth it with evidence of a more excellent na-
ture, and attended with a penetrancy quite of another
kind, than any mathematical demonftration can amount
to. In this cafe, the foul (2 Cor. iii 3.) is an -epidle
of Jefus Chriftj wherein thefe great truths are written
by himfelf, in characters which the united force. and
fubtilties of hell (hall be fo far from deleting, that their
it rongeit efforts fliall render the impreiTions ftiil deep-
er, and more vivid. No mathematical demonftration
can vie with this: forafmuch as the authority of the
God of truth, that conveys bis own teftimony into
the heart with a ftrong hand, has a glory and evidence
peculiar to iti'elf. And though well known to thofe
who enjoy it, yet of a beauty great and myfterious, fuch
as the tongues of men and angels could not fuffice to
defcribe. The empty cavils of that execrable herd of
blafphemous Atheiiis, or Deiils, as they would be cal-
led, amount to a very fmal! and contemptible account,
feeing the moll fubtile of them, fall very far fhort of
the objections which unclean fpirits propofe, and urge
in a way of temptation, again ft perfons exercifed to
^-;adlinef>;, which yet the Father of lights difpelleth

mercifully

PREFACE.

Vll

mercifully from time to time, and maketh thefe dark
fhadts to evanifb, as the Sun of righteoufnefs arifeth
upon the foul with a glory and evidence ftill upon the
afcendant, Mai. iv. 2. Prov. iv. 18. Hof. vi. 3. Ne-
veriheles, the learned and godly avathor hath encoun-
tered thefe filJy creatures at their own weapons, both
ofFen fively ard defenfively, and to fuch excellent pur-
pofe, as needeth not my poor teftimony. He hath
fearched into the very bottom of what they allege. With
great and unwearied diligence did he read their writ-
ings carefully from the very firft fprings, and hath re-
prefented fairly their empty cavils, in all the fbadows
of (Irength they can be alleged to have, and has refut-
ed them plainly and copioufly. On which, and the
like accounts, 1 hope the work will be, through the di-
vine bleffing, of great ufe in the churches of Chrift.

JAMES HOG.

TO

TO THE PUBLIC.

THOUGH the editors will not prefume to offer any recdffi-
mendation of the enlliing work ; yet they conceive them-
felves juftifiable^ in prefenting to the public the fentinients of
fome eminent chara6ters refpeding it. 1 his they do chieiiy with
a view to obviate an objection that poffibly may ariie in the
minds of fome, viz. That it is not adapted to the prefent Rate of
the ccntroverfy with the Deifts. To this we would obferve,
that a careflil peruful of the book will at once prove, to any
perfon acquainted with the controverfy, that the arguments lat-
terly produced againft divine revelation, are in fubftance precifely
the fame with thofe form.erly advanced by Herbert and his ad°
herents, with whom our author chiefly contends. And that he
has fully fucceeded in this conteft, was the judgment of the cele-
brated Dr* Watts* He here ** proves," fays the Dr. ^^ by un-*
^* anfwcrable arguments, the utter ihfufficiency of the Deiils^
*^ religion for the falvation of men, and beats them fairly at their
" v;eapon3*i'' Dr. John Newton, in one of his letters to

the rev. Mr. S=^ , to whom he had fent Mr. Halyburton^s

book for perufal, thus expreffes his fentiments refpeding it : ^^ I
'^ fct a high value upon this book of Mr. Haly burton's ; fo
** that unlefs I could replace it with another, I know not if I
*' would part with it for its weight in gold. The firft and long-
*' eft treatife, (meaning that againft the Deifts) is in my judg-
'^ ment a m.after-piece-j-.'^ Dr- Jameison of Edinburgh, who
no dcubt will be allowed to be well acquainted with the prefent
jtatt of the controverfy, in a late publication, having occafion to
mention Mr. Hal\^ burton's treatife, fays. It is *^ a book not fur-
** pafied, if equalled, by any of the numerous antl-deifilcal wnu
'' inos that have appeared fmce the tim.e of its publication ; and
*' v.diich has this ipecial excellency, that it carries the war into
<^ caiVip of the adveriary±.'' — — Eulogiums cculd be multiplied,
and the teftimonies of eminent clergymen in this country produ-
ced, v.ere it deemed necelTary. We are authorifed in faying^
that it has the decided approbation of Dr. NisbeT, Prefident of
Jjickinfon ColL-ge ; to whom we are indebted for the tranllation
of the Latin quotations, and a number of literal corrections, which
much increaiVe. the value of the prefent edition.
Pkihidtiphwy Feb' 1798.

* See his Recoirimendatioii picf.::ed to Mr. Halyburton's Men-.oirs. page 7^
of P'lM'adelpblii edition,
t Newton's Letters, vol. T. pag. 148, Phi!ado!pliia edition.
\ Alarni to Britain, pag. 25.

SUBSCRIBERS^ NAMES

L\EV. James Abei-cromble,
minirter of the Proteftant E-
pifcopal ehureh, Philadelphia.
Rev. John Andenon, minifterof
the Affociate congregations at
Milr-creek and Harman's-cr,
near Pittfburgh
Dr. Henry Arnot, York county
I}r, James Armflrong, Carlifle,
Thomas Aliifon, ftud, of divinity
Col. Aliifon, Philadelphia
Mr. Robert Armflrong, Juniata
Abraham Anderfon, Carlifle
James Anderfon, do

.William Alexander, do
Vv'illiam Airkin, Yci:k cou.
Alexander Aliifon, do
Ja. Agnew, Ma^:(h creek, do
J no. Aj>new, do do
Thos. Adams, "Walh, county
Samuel Agnevv, do
John Afhton,Camb. fN.Tj
James Afnton, do
John Armitage, do
Archibald Armftrong

B

Ktv. Thomas Eeveridge, Cam-
bridge, fN. T.J
Mr. George Barber, do
Mrs. Hannah Barton, fK J.)
Lewis Berry, do
Robert Boyd, do
James Buchanan, Wafhing-
ton county

Mr. Evert Bufn, New- York
John Pennie, do
Alexander Bradley, Carlifle
James Blaine, 6.<:i

Charles Bovard, do

William Brcrden,ftudent,do
John Brov.'n, W^eft Pennf-

borough townfliip
Randel Blair, do
David Blaine, Big-fpringj

2 copies
James Brown, do
John Brown, do
Andtew Bran wood, Marlh-

creek, York county

Rev. Ja;r,es Clark fon, York cc.
Rev^. William Clarkfon, near
Bridgetown, fI\',J,J i z copies
Mr. Abraham Craig, A. B. Big^
fpiing
John Creigh, Carlifle
Thomas Graigliead, do
James Chrifw, 11, Lev/is

townfliip, MiSin county
James Conchy, FhiladeU
James Creng do

Michael Cc>:rodi do
Alexander Caflel, Wafii. co^
P.andc! Cowden, do

Samuel Cald^vell, do
Andrew Chriftie, N. York
AlexC'i'ider Cunningham,
merchant, Wafii. (Fen.)

c

SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES.

Mr, John Cunningham, Dela-
ware county
William Collins, "Vork co.
Samuel Cr.lilns do

John Collins, do

D

Rer.Jchn Dunlap,Camb. ^V.^'*.;
Jonathan Dorr, phyiiclan, do
Rev, Robert Davidfon, D. D,
miRifter of the Prefbyterian
church, Carlille
James Duncan, preacher of the

gofjjel
Mr, Thomas Dick, New- York
Hugh Dodd, Philadelphia
Ja. Duncan, Carlifle
'IhoiTias Duncan, attorney

at law, do
Robert Dawfon^ Wafh. co.
John Donaiiifon, Norihuiu,

Rev. John Ewing, D. D. pador
of the firft Prefbyterian church,
Philadelphia
Mr. Benjamin Egbert, N. York
James Edmifton, Lewis-
town, Miffiin county
Peter Eifenbray, Philad.

F

Mr. Alexander Fridge, Yhlhd,
James Furze, do

John Frirth, Salem, rN.J.J
John Forfythe, Carlide
Samuel Fullerton, York
county

G

Rev. Albbel Green, D. D. paf-
tor of the fecond Prefbyterian
church, Philadelphia

Rev. David Goodwille, Earner,

fVermofJt)
Mr. Samuel Gufline, Carliile
Francis Gibibn, do

Mr. George Gofrnan, N. York
12 copies
Jacob Grove, York county
Thomas Grove, do
Alexander Govvens, do
Gaion Grier, Waui. county

H

Pvcv. Matthew Hcnderion, Alle-
gany county

Davijd HaySjllud.atlaw, Carlifle

Thomas Kainilton, lludent of
divinity, Wafh In^e^. co.

Mr. J no. Hughes, Carlifle
Robert Huiton, do
Peter H art rick, New-Y'ork
Cornelius C. Hoffman, do
David Hall, Philadelphia
James Hogan, do
Samuel Harper, York co.
Hugh Hcnderfon, do
Jofeph n a mil ton, do
Ebenezer Henderfon, -do
Alex. Hcnderfcn,Wafh. co.
Ezekial Hill, Monrgom.co.
John Hsys, do
AmafaHinchlev,Cari)bridge

fN^. r.)

James Hoy, do

Mr. James Irwin, Cumb. county
William Innes, PhiladeL
Johjii Johnflon, do.

K

William Kef fey, Chief Jddoe of

Steuben cou-nt)-, {N, T.f
Mr. /Andrew Kevan, New- York
David Kempton, Carlifle
John Kemen, Wafhing. co.

Rev. John Linn, Shearman'sVal-

ley^
Mif. VVrn. Liggar, fen. York co.

SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES,

Mr^ Francis Linch, New-York
Samuel Longcope, Philad.
Archibald Loudon, CMflifle
Vv Mliam Lyon, do

James Lamberton, do
Saaiuel Laird, do

Philip K. Laurence, do
John Lecky, Norihura. co,

M
Rev. Samuel Magaw, D. D,
reflior of Sr, Paul's church,
Philadelphia
Rev. WiJIiam MarOiall, A. M.
minifter of theAfibciate church
Philadelphia
Rev, John iVlafon, New- York

12 copies
James M'Cormick, profefTor of
mathemacicks in Dickinfon
College
John Montgomery, Efq. Carlifle
Samuel Murdoch, ftad. of divi-
nity, Waihing. county
John M'Phcrfon, Efq. Norlhui-n,
Dr. Sam. A. M'Cofey, Carlifle
James Magiil, A. B, near MifHin
town
^ Mr. barauel Mill/r, (N, T.J
lo copies
John M'Clellan, do
Alexander M'Donald, Nor,

thumberland, 2 copies
William Mack}-, do

Robert M'Neal, do

John M'Alliiler, Philadel,
John M^Ara^ do
Andrew M'Ara, do
Andrew M'Calla, da
Robert rvjillikin, do
William W. Moore, do
John M'CleHCchan, do
Walter Mickeljohn, do
James M'G lathery, do
Peter M<Kachan, N. York
Daniel M'Lauren, do

Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Carlifle
William MCluer, do
Andrew Munro, do
William Moore, da
Alex. M'Kechan, jun. do
William M'Craken, do
Hugh M'Cormick, Rear do
Pi ugh Morrifon, York co.
Andrew Martin, do
Robert MClellan, do
David Mdellan, do
Frederick M-Pherfon, do
John Main, i^hippeniburgh
James M<Nary, Walh. co.
Samuel M'Bride, do
Samuel M^Gov.'en, do
John MCall, do

Henry Maxwell, do
James Morrifon, do
Charles Moore, do

James M'Keman, do
James Marfhall, do

Samuel Marihall, do

N
Rev. Charles Nilbet, D.D. Pre

fidcnt of Dickinfon, Carlifle
Mr, John Noble, do

O

Mr, Jacob Orwitt, Cambridge,

(N, r,j

Robert Oliver, do
William Ouells, do

Rev. Samuel Porter, minifter at
Congruity and Poke run,Weil-
rnoreland, near Pitlhurgh
Robert Patterfon, profeflbr of
inathemaiicks in theUniverfity
of Pennfylvania
Mrs. Mary Patron, Carlifle,

3 copies
Mr' George Paitifon, Carlifle
Charles Pauifon, do
James Paxton, near do

SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES.

Mr. fames Peden, York county
Archibald Purdie, do
James Philips, Philadelphia
Charles Pettit do

Hugh Patton, Wafhing. co.

Kev. William Rogers, D. D. pro-
fefibr of Englifh 'and Oratory,
in theUniverfiiy of Pennfyi,

Mrs. Mary Rca, Philadelphia
Frances Pvcid, Carlille

Mr. Archibald Kainfej;, do
James Robcrticn, N. York
Thomas Rohertion, do
Sia.on PvofssHopeweli town

{hipj <^umb= county
Ifaac Ralilon, Philadelphia
Samuel Rofeburgh, York co.
David Reed, " do
James Raliton. Wafnw co.
Andrew Ruffel, do
James Ruffe!, do
John Reznor, Northumb.

Rev. Thomas Smith

John Steele, A. B. Carlifle

Snovvden & M*CorkIe, printers,

Philadelphia
Mr. John Scotland, New- York
1 copies
Jamas Small, Camb. fN,T.J
Alexander bkelly, do
Vv^iilium Story
Henry Sclieetz, Montg. co.
Juftus Scheetz, do

Woolry Slaughter, do
Jeremiah ::impfon,Wafb.co.
John StrLither>s, fen. do.
John Struthers, jun» do
Robert Simpfon, do
William Smiley, Philadel.
John Smith, Big-fpring near
Cariine

Mr. James Stirling, flore-keepcr
P/jrlington
Eiillia Steele, Carlifle

William Thcmpfon, teacher of
languages in Dickhu^on Col-
lege, Carlifle
Samuel Tate, teacher of Eng. do.-
Mr. Archibald Tompfon, Frank-
lin county
Andrew Thomfon, do
John Thorapfon, do
Jofeph Thompfon,York co.
Samuel Tagart, WaPn. co.
John Tagart, do

James Ihompfon, Philad.

U

Rev. Thomas Uftick, minifter of
the Bapiiil church, Philadel.

W \

Rev, Samuel Waugh, Silver-

. .Spring

WiiiiamWilfon, preacher of the
gofpei

David Watts, attorney at law,
Carlifle

Jonathan Walker, Efq-Northum.

Mr. William Wiifon, . do
David Walker, Cumb. co,
John Wright, Carlifle
, John Walker, do

A nd row Wright,Ne w - York
Charles Whyte, Philadel,
William Wear, do
David Wallace, York coun.
Alexander Wallace, do
John Wiifon, jun. do
John White, Wafliing. co.
Andrew V/hite, Cambridge

Y

Mr, Jofeph Young, Carlifle
Stephen Young, Philadel,

d^ The following names came too late for infertion in their pro-*

per place, ,

From Camb, and Argyhy (N» T.J

From Northumberland, (Fenn,)

Dr. Andrew Proudfit

William Reid, Efq.

William P. Brady, Efq.

yiu John Reid

Mr

. John Cowden

James Beatie

John Wilfon

John Gilchrift

Daniel Reea

Peter M<Euchron

Peter Jones

John Herflia

Mordecai M'Kay

John Millar

William Reynolds

Finley M^Naughton

James Shaddon

John White

Jared Irwin

Archibald M'Neal

William Murray

John M'Neal

James Armftrong

William Robertfon

Ifaac Hannah

Roger Campbell

John Jones

Duncan M*Arthur

And re A^ Kenne«ly

Cafpcrus Baine

David Steel

Daniel Mothiefon

Thomas Walfon

*/ The binder is direded to

place

thefe immediately after the

laft page of the Subfcribers* Names,

„>< • X i

g^ ^KrEWBKWBac=aBea:»s»a=iB«as3aE^ ==-==«^2

TO THE READER.

Meader,

WHOEVER thou art, the queftion agitated In
the enfuing difcourfe is that wherein thou had
a coniiderable concernment. If thou art a Chriiiian,
the enfuing difcourfe is defigned to juftify thy refufal
of that religion which has now got a great vogue
amongft tholie gentlemen, who fet up for the only wits,
and aim at monopolizing reafon, as if they alone were
the peorle, and wifdom was io die witJo them. They cry
up their religion as the only reafonable religion, and
traduce all who will not join with them, as credulous
and unreafonable men. Whereas, on the contrary, no
man that ufes his reafGn, can clofe with that which
ihey would obtrude on us as rational religion : nor can
any man, without being guilty of the fondeft credulity,
venture his falvation upon this modern Paganifm, that
it^ruts abroad under the modilli name of Deifm^ which
I nope the enfuing difcourfe will evince; wherein it
is made appear, that the light of nature is utterly in/uf-
ficient io an/wer the great ends of religion^ and that con-
fequentiy we had the jufteft reafon in the world, if there
were none, to wilh for a revelation from God, as what
is of abfolute neceiTity to our happinefs ; and fince

there

xiv TO THE R E A D E R.

there is one, with the greated thankfulnefs to embrace
it, cleax'e to it, and comply with it.

Reader, if thou hail thy religion yet to choofe, which
J aai afraid is too common a cafe in this unftable
ijge, then it is high time thou wert bethinking thyfelf
of religion in earneft.

To-morrow thou wilt live, thou ftill doft fay;
To-day's too lare, the wife liv'd yeilerday.

And if after too long a delay thou mean to avoid au
unhappy choice, reafon advifes thee to confider weil^
that when the choice is made, care be taken to make
it fo, as to prevent the neceffity either of a fecond
choice, or a too late repentance for choofing amifs.
1 here is a fet of men, who cry up at this day natural
religion, and efpecially commend it to fnch as have no
religion. It is fuch as thou art that they defire to deal
with, and among fuch it is that they are mod fuccefs-
ful. But if thou hail a mind not to be deceived in a
matter of fuch moment, it imports thee not a little to
confider what may be faid againft that, which it is
likely may be offered thee, as a fine, modifli, reafon-
able religion, meet for a gentle7nan, a man of wit and
reafon, I have here offered to prove this all to be faid
without, yea againft reafon and experience. Well, firft
hear and then judge, and after that choofe or refufe
as thou feeft caufe.

As for the management of this ufeful inquiry, it is
Vv'holly fuited to that which at firft was only defigned,
viz. the fatisfadion of tbe writer's own mind about
the queftion that is here propofed. I entered not up-
on this inquiry with a view to oppofe any man, or tri-
umph over adverfaries, and fo did induftrioufly wave
thole catches, fubtilties, and other nicities, ufed fre-
quently by writers of controverfy.^ My only defign
was to fnid the truth, and therefore 1 chofe clearly to

ftate

TO THE READER. xv

ftate the qiieftion, which I found the Deifts always a-
voided, and plainly propofe my reafons for that fide of
it I took, after trial, to be the truth. As to the op-
pofite opinion, I made it my bufmefs to make a dili-
gent inquiry into the ftrongeft arguments advanced
for it, candidly to propofe them in their utmoft force,
and clofely to anfwer them ; avoiding, as much as
might be, fuch reproaches as are unworthy of a Chrif-
tian, or an inquirer after truth, though I met with fre^
q»ent provocation, and found fometimes how true that
is, Difficile tji non fcrihere faiyrani contra fatytiwi '*.

It was not am.ufement I aim.ed at, or to pleafe my
©wn fancy, or tickle the reader's ears with a gingle of
words, or divert aud bias the judgment by a flood of
rhetorick, I never defigned to fet up for an orator.
My b^finefs lies quite another way, it is what I lay no
claim to, and what I think is to be avoided in difcourfes
of this kind. All 1 aimed at as to language, w^as to
clothe my thoughts in plain and intelligible expref-
fions. The reader is to expect no more, and if he
mifs this I hope it will be but rarely-

It is not to be expeded, that a diicourfe which was
begun in an inverted order, the middle part being firft
writ ; and that was compofed in the intervals of bufi-
nefs of a very different nature, at (pare hours, by one
of no gre-^t experience, and an ucter llranger to w-ri-
tings of this fort, (I all be free of biemifiies that may
offend nicer palates. Some few repetitions could nor,
at lead: without more pains in tranfcribing than I had
either leifure or inclination for, well be avoided. Nor
could a difcourfe fo often interrupted by other bufmefs,
and upon fo very different fubjeQs, be carried on with
that equality of itile that v/ere to be wifbed, efpecially
by Gue who was never over much an affedter of elegan-

" cy
* ** It is diiFicult not co writea fatjr againft mtyr."

xvi T O T H E R E A D E R.

cy of language. In a word, the work is long, much
longer than I defigned ; and yet without wionging the
iubjed, at leaft as I am othervvife fituated and engaged,
I could not eafily (liorten it. li he pleales to inioect
the book, he may poffibly find, that I had reafon for
iRfifling at the length I have done. However, every
one has not his art, who could enclofe Homer's Iliads
in a niu's fhell.

I am fenfible, that what I have difcourfed in the iird
chapter of the enfuing treatife, concerning ttiQ Occajt^ns
of De'ifm^ will grate bard upon a {^i of men, who hava
for many years bygone carried ail before them, and
fo took it ill to have any cenfures bedowed on them.,
though they did feverely animadvert upon the real or
fuppofed faults of others. As to this I have not much
to fay by v;ay of apology. That Deifm has fprung up
and grows apace amongft us, is on all hands confeifed*
Others have offered their conjedures concerning the oc-
cafions of its increafe. Why I might not oiler niy opi-
nion alfo, 1 know no reafon. '1 he principal fuhject of
the enfuing treatife fuffers riot, though I fiiould herein
be millaken. i\\ propofing my conjecture 1 did notpur-
fu£ the intereii" of any party ; but have freely blanked all.
parties, if the fticklers for the Arminian or Socinian
divinity are touched, it was becaufe I thought they were
to be blamed, and therefore I have withllood them to
their face. As to the tendency of their principles I
have been fparing, becaufe that debate has \^K^.tVi fuiiici-
ently agitated in the Low Countries betwixt the con-
tending parties. The reader who would be fatisfied as
to this, may perufe thofe who have direclly managed
this charge, and the aniv/ers that have been made, and
judge upon the whole matter as he finds caufe*. But

whatever

* See Arcana Arminianifnij, by Vicleaus, ;md Vi-jelius Roprodiis.
With Videlius's Rf-joinders, <? c.

TO THE READER. xvu

whatever may be as to this, the manner of their ma*
nagement may perhaps be found lefs capable of a colour-
able defence. And it is upon this that I have principally
infilled. To oppofe, efpecially from the pulpit, with con^
tempt, buffoonry, banter and fatyr, principles, that fober
perfons of the fame perfuafion do own to have at leaft a
very plaufible like foundation in the word of God,
and which have been, for near fixty or feventy years af-
ter the reformation, the confVant doctrine of the fathers,
and fons of the church of England, and have by them
been inferted into her articles, and fo become a part of
her doctrine*, is a praclice that I do not well underiland
how to excufe, or free from the imputation of profanity,
and which hath too manifeft a tendency to Atheifm, to
admit of any tolerable defence. The fcriptures, and
truths, that have any countenance in them, or opinions
which they feem really to perfons otherwife fober, pious
and judicious, not only to teach, but to inculcate as of*
the higheft importance, are not a meet fubjecl for raille-
ry ; nor is the pulpit a meet place for it. This is that for
which principally I have blamed them, and this I cannot
retrad. If they take this ill, I afk them, Have not
others as much reafon to take it ill, that the doclrines of
the church of England taught in her articles and homi-
lies, and profeffed by her learned billiops, who compo-
fed them, and by her fons for fo long a trad of time, as
confonant to, found in, and grounded on the v/ord of
God, (hould be fo petulantly traduced by wit, raillery^
and declamatory invedives from prefs and pulpit ; and
that too by thofe who have fubfcribed to thefe articles
and homilies ? This managiement has been complained
of by fober perfons of all parties, churchmen and dif-
fenters, contra-remonftrants and remonftrants too, as I
could make appear, if there were occafion for it : And

D why

* See Bifhop of Sarum on the Articles; Preface, pag. 7, S*

XViil

TO THE READER.

why I might not alfo complain, I want yet to be inform-
ed. None is charged fave the guilty. Others who are
free have no reafon to be angry. And, perhaps, they
who will be offended at this, would fcarce have been
pleafed if I had let it alone.

In the tenth chapter of this treatife, I have oppofed
the opinion that afferts the Heathen world to be under
a government of grace. I know it is maintained by
many learned men both at home and abroad, from
whofe memory, if dead, or juft refpecl, if alive, I de-
figned not to detract. Nor did I defign to lid them with
the Deifls, whom I know to have been folidly oppofed
by feverals that were of this opinion. But yet I do think
the opinion itfeif deftitute of any folid foundation, with
ail deference to them, who think otherwife, either in
fcriptw^re, reafon or experience. And I am further of
the mind, that the learned abettors of it, had never em-
braced an affertion, that expofes them to fo many per-
plexing^ difficulties, and puts them upon a necellity of
ufmgfo many, I had almofl faid, unintelligible diftinc-
tions for its fupport, if they had not been driven to it
by fome peculiar hypothefis in divinity which they have
feen meet to embrace. If any intend to prove what I
have denied, I wiOi it jiiay be done by proper argu-
ments, diredly proving it, and not by advancing an hy-
porhefis that remotely infers it^ and which, in itfeif, or,
at lead as propofed by thofe whom [have met with, is fo
darkened by a huge multitude of fubtile, myfterious
and uncouth diftinclions, that I can fcarce ever project
fo much lime as to underdand them. Flov/ever this
much I mud fay, that fo crofs does this opinion feem to
fcripture, reafon and experience, that it will go a very
great wav to weaken the credit of any hypothefis on which
it inevirahly follows. However, I hope this may be faid,
and diiferent opinions about this point without any
breach of charity may be retained. Diver/urn fen^

tire

TOTHEREADER. xix

tire duos de rebus i'lfdem incolumi licuit femper amicUia* . I
know the abettors of this opinion are hearty friends in
the main tc the caufe I here maintain.

The fcheme I have in the clofe of that chapter offer-
ed by way of digreflion, of God*s government of the
Heathen world, is not defigned as a full account of that
matter, which as to many of its concernments, is of
ihofe things that are not revealed, and fo belong not to-
us ', much iefs is it defigned to be the ground of a pe^
remptory judgment as to the eternal (late of them, who
are without the church : But only to (hew, that any
thing we certainly know as to God's dealings wuh them,
in the common courfe of his providence, may, upon
other fuppofitions and principles, befide that rejected,
be accounted for. The judicious and fober reader may
judge of ic as he fees caufe. I hope I have, in a matter
of fuch difficulty, avoided any unbecoming curiofity,
or affecting to be wife above what is written.

If any blame me for the multitude of quotations, I
anfwer, the fubjed I undertook rendered this unavoid-
able. I have ufed the utmoft candor in them. ^ Some»
times out of a regard to brevity I have avoided the
tranflation of teftimonies quoted from authors who writ
in a different language. Ihe learned will not complain
of this : And if any perfon of tolerable judgment, who
is not learned, will be at pains to perufe the enfuing dif-
courfe, he will find as much faid, without regarding
thofe quotations, as may fatisfy his mind upon this
fubjedt.

As to what I have, in the enfuing papers afcribed, to
Mr. Gildon publifher of the Oracles of Reafon, I had
written it before I underftood his recover)-^ from Deifm,
But yet 1 thought it not meet to alter it, becaufe there

are

+ " It was always allowed, that two perfons might think differently
« of the fame things, without breach of friendihip,'*

XX T O T H E R E A D E R.

arc, no doubt, many others who entertain the fame no^
tions be then did maintain, and my oppofition is to the
principles and not the perfons. As for his recovery, I
congratulate it, and wifli it may be fuch as may fecure
hin^i from after-reckoning for the hurt he has done.

If any DeiRs (hall fee meet to undertake this debate,
I decline it not. If they treat my book as they have
done thofe of others, every way my fuperiors, and as
Tats are wont to do,— gnaw only the outfide, divert to in-
cident things that are not to the purpofe, and fmgle out
rather what feems exceptionable than what is of moment,
following him who did fo.

Defbcrat tra6lata nitefcere pojje relinquit *>

I have fomewhat t\{Q to do, than to take any notice of
fuch impertinency. If any fliall offer a folid and ra-
tonal confutation, which yet I am not much afraid of,
and convince me, not by jeif, buffoonry and railleryj
but by folid arguments, of my being in a miftake,

Cuftfia recantaho n'.alediSiai priora repe^idam
LaudibuSi ^ 'vefirum iiomen in ajira feram \„

* 'f And leaves out whatever he defpairs of being able to fhine in
<« if they vi^erc touched on."

f *< 1 will recant all my reproaches, I will make amends for my for-
»< mer Danders by praifes^ and will exalt your name to the ftars,"

INDEX.

I N D E X,

I

NTRODUCTION, - - Page 41

[Wherein it is proved a vmtter of the highelt import and nece/fty
to 77iake a fight choice of religion ; and zvherein 2t is juriher
evinced^ that no man without the moji mamfe/i violence to rta^
Jon, can turn Heathen^ Mahometan, or acquiefce in Aihe.ijm
or Sepncifm, and that confequently fvery man mvft acquiefce
in the Scriptures^ 0^ turn Deijt. This latf^'r uvder'ak-..> to he
demonfiiated falfe and ruining, — Th^ author s inducements to
this undertaking,]

CHAP. I.

Giving a Jhort account of the rife, occafions, and progrefs of
Dei/m^ efpe daily in Fn gland \ the op nions oj the Deifls ; the
different forts of Deijis, mortal and immortal, 61

C H A P. II.

Mortal Deifls whOf and what judgment to he made of them and
their fentimentSi - - 76

CHAP. 111.

Wherein the controverfy betwixt us and the Immortal Deifls is
fated and cleared, - « g^

CHAP. IV.

Wherein the infiifficiency of natural religion is proved from the
infiifficiency oj its difcoveries of a Deity ^ - "^ 88

C H A P. V.

Proving the infujficiency of natural jeligionfrom its defcBivenefs
as to the worfhip of God, -^ - 106

xxii INDEX.

CHAP. VI.

Proving the infufficiency of natural religion from its deJeEHvc"
nefs as to the difcovery wherein 7nans happmefs lies, 112

CHAP. VII.

Natures light affords not a fufficient rule of duty. Its injuf-
Jiciency hence inferred, - - 127

CHAP. VIII.

Proving the infufficiency of natural religion from its defeBs as
to fiifficicnt motives for enforcing obedience, 138

CHAP. IX.

Shewing the importance of knowing the origin of fin to the worlds
and the defedivenefs of nature's light as to this, 147

CHAP. X.

Proving nature's light unable to dif cover the means of obtaining
pardon oj finy or to fhew that it is attainable, 161

Sect. I. The importance of this difficulty ftated, 162

Sect. II. Shewing the darknefs of nature s light as to
pardon, - - 171

Sect. III. Wherein it is inquired whether repentance is
fufficient to atone for fin "/ How far nature's light ena-
bles to It ? What affiurance nature s light gives of par-
don upon repentance? 17S

Objections confdered, - - 209

Digression concerning God's government of the Heathen

zuorld,fiewing that there is nothing in it whence any dc"

fign of God to pardon them may he certainly inferred, 23S

C H A P. XI.

Proving the inftiffiiciency oJ natural religion to era die ate our iw
clinations to jin, or fubdue its power, 248

CHAP. XII.

Wherein the proof of the infufficiency of natural religion is con-
cluded Jrom a general view of the experience of the worlds 26©

INDEX. xxiii

CHAP. XIII.

Wherein tog make atranfition to theDeiJls pleas for their opinion ^
and take particular notice of the Articles to which thzy reduce
their catholick religion ; give fame account of Baron Herbert,
the frfi iriventer of this catholick religion, his Books, and
particularly of that which is infcribed De Religione Gcntili-
lium, as to the matter and f cope of it, and the importance
of what is therein attempted to the Dezjis' caufe, ^66

CHAP. XIV.

Wherein it is inquired, Whether Herbert has proved that his Five
Articles did univerfally obtain ^ - 278

C H A P. XV.

Wherein it is made appear that Herbert's Five Articles did not
univerfally obtain^ - - 306

CHAP. XVI.

Wherein fo me general con ft derations are laid dozen for proving
that many of the bejl things, which are to be met with in the
Heathens, were not the dif cover ies of nature s lights but came
from tradition, - - 327

CHAP. XVII.

Wherein we confider what Herbert s opinion was as to thefuffcien-
cy of his Articles, and offer fo me reflexions, fhewing hozv
foolifli, abfurd and ridiculous the Deifis' pretences to their
f efficiency are, - - 333

CHAP. XVIII.

Containing an anfzoer to fow.e of the Deifls* principal arguments
for the fujficiency of natural religion, * 345

CHAP. XIX.

Wherein Herbert's reafons for publiPiing his hooks in defence of
Deifn are examined and found weak, 361

C H A P. XX.

Wherein the Queries offered by Herbert and Blount, for proving
the fujiciency of their Five Articles are examined, 370

xxh INDEX,

ESSAY ON FA I TIL

C H A P. L

Containing fome general remarks concernmg knowledge, faith, and
particularly divine faith, and that both as to the faculty and act-
ings thereof J - • 40 1

CHAP. II.

Wherein the nature of that faith, -u^hich in duty we are obliged to
give to the word of God, our obligation to, and our ability for
anfwtring our duty, are inquired into, ■ 404

CHAP. III.

The ground, or the ftsrmal reafon, whereon faith affents td the
fcriptures is inquired after ; the RatlonaUji^s oph'ton about it,
and particularly as fiat ed by Mr. Locke in his book on Human
Underftanding, is propofed and conjidered, 409

INTRODUCTION.

In this fceptical age, which qut^flions almofl every
thin^, If is rtill owned as certain, that all rnen mufl die. If
there were any place for dlfputing this, there are not a few,
who would fpare no pa'ns to bring theiiifelves Into the difbelief
of a trufh, that gives them io mach dlfturbance, In the courfes
they love and feem refolved to follow : But the cafe Is fo clear,
and the evlden-c of (his principle fo pregnant, which Is every
day confirmed by new experiments, th^t the moft refolved in-
fidel is forced, when it comes in his v/ay, though unwilling,
to eive his affjnt, and moan out an Amen. The ^rave is the
houfe appointed for all the livings Some arrive fooner, fome
later ; bat all come there at length. The obfcurity of the
ineanefl: cannot hide him, nor the power of the greateft fcreen
him from the impartial hand of death, the executioner of fate,
if I may be allowed the ufe of a word {o much abufed. As its
coming Is placed beyond doubt, {o its afpe6l is hideous beyond
the reach of thought, the farce of expreiHon, or (he utmoft ef-
forts of the finefi pencil In the moft artful hand*. It, In a mo-
ment, da(hes down a fabric, which has more of curious con-
trivance than all the celebrated pieces put together, which the
moft refined human wits have Invented, even when carried to
the greateft height, which the Improvements of fo many fubfe-
quent generations, after the utmoft of application and diligence,
could bring them to. It puts a flop to many thoufand motions,
which, though (irangely diverfified, did all concur, with won-
derful exa6tnefs, to maintain, and carry on the defign and In-
tendment of the glorious and divine Artificer. How this divine

E and

42 INTRODUCTION.

and wonderful machine was firQ ere6\ed, fet a going:, and has^
for (o long a trad of time, regularly peirformed al) i's rr.otions,
could never yet be underilood by the moft elevated underftand-
ings. CaTiJl thou till hozv the bones grow in the womb of her
that is with child', is a challenge to all the fons of art, to un-
fold the myOery? Many have accepted it, but all have been
foiled. Something they could (ay : but, in fpite of it all, the
thing they found a myilery, they left fo flill. How can one then
look on the dilTolutibn of fo admirable a contrivance, a machine
fo curious, and fo far farpafling human art, without the deep-
efl and moil ienfible regret. It untwifis that myrtcrious tie,
whereby foul and body were fo faft linked together ; breaks
up that intimate and ciofe correfpondence, that entire fympaihy
which was founded thereon ; diilodges an old inhabitant ; and
while it lingers, being unvi^illing to remove, death pulls that
curious fabric, wherein it dwelt, down about its ears, and fo
forces it thence, to take up its lodgings, it can fcarce tell where.-
And upon its removal, that curious fabric, that a little before
was full of life, a(Stivity, vigour, order, warmth, and every thing
clfe that is pleafant, is now left a dead, unacSlive, cold lump,
or difcidered mafs of loathfome matter, full of ftench and cor-
ruption. Now the body is a fpe6\acte fo hideous, that they wha
loved, and who embraced it before, cannot abide the fight or
fmell of it ,- but (but it up in a coffin, and not content with that,-
away they carry it and lodge it amongf^ worms, and the vileft
infects in the bowels of the earth, to be Coiifumed, devoured,
torn and rent by the moft abominable vermin that lodge in the
grave.

Quantum inutatus ah illo "*.

V/e have all heard of the afflictions of Job, Two or three
meflengcrs arrive, each after another, and Oill the laft is worft^
Every one tells a ftory. The firft is fad ; but its flill more me-
lancholy that follows. The difafter is fo terrible, that it fills
the world with jiift af^onilhrnent. And yet after all, what is
X^\s\o death, which alone is able to furniPn fubjesSl, more than
enough, for fome thoufands of fuch melancholy melTages ! One
might bring the dying man the melancholy tidings, that he is
divefted of all his beneficial, pleafant, and honourable em-
ployments: While he is yet fpeakinsj, another might be ready
to bid him denude himfeif of all his poiTcffions : A third, to

continue

* « How greatly changed from wh?t it once was,'*

INTRODUeTIOKr. 43

continue the tragedy,^ might afTure hira that there is a commif^
fioti ifTued out to an impartial hand, to tear him from the cm-
braces of his dear relations, without regarding the hideous out-
cries of a loving wife, the meltings of tender infants, the in-
tercelTions of dear friends : While others continuing ftill the
mournful fcene, might allure him that he was no more to re-
ViCa the f.agrancy of the fpring, or tafte the delights of the fons
of men, or fee the pleaf^qt light of the fun, or hear the charm-
ing aiis of mufic, or the yet more ufeful converfe of friends.
And to make the matter fadder Hill, if it can well be (o, the
ftory might be fliut up with a rueful account of the parting of
foul and body, with all the horrible difaflers that follow upon
this parting.

Thus the cafe evidently ftands. Not a title of all this ad-
mits of debate. To every man it may be faid, De tc fahula
narratur*. What a wonder is it, that fo grave and important
a fubject is fo little in the thoughts of men ? What apology
can be made for the folly of minkind, who are at fo much pains
to fhelter themfelvcs againrt lefler inconveniences, quite over-
looking this, that is of infinitely greater confequence ?

Here is the light-fidc of death, which every body may fee.
What a rueful and allonilhing profpe6l doth it give us? Where
fell we find comfort againll that difmal day, whereon all this
fhall be verified in us? He is fomething worfe than a fool or
madman, that will not look to this. And he is yet more mad
that thinks, that rational comfort in fuch a cafe can be main-
tained upon dark, flender and conjectural grounds.

It is certain, that which muft fupport, mufi be fomething on
the other fide of time. The one fide of death affords nothing but
matter of terror ; if we arc not enabled to look forward, and
get fuch a fight of the other as may balance it, we may rea^
Ibnably fay, that it had been better for us never to have been.

Undoubtedly, therefore, no queilion is fo ufeful, fo necef-
farv, fo noble, and truly wojthy the mind of man as this—
What lliall become ofm- after death? What have I to look
for ori the other fide of that awful change?

Thofe arts and fcience^ which exercife the induftry and con-
fideration of the greater part of the thinking world, are cal-
culated for time, and aim at the ple?.fure or advantage of a pre-
sent life. It is religion alone that directly concerns itfelf in the

important

* « It is of you that the ftory is told."

44 INTRODUCTION,

important qiiefllon laft mentioned, and pretends to offer coiti*
forts aeain ft the melancholy a fpeil of desth, by fecuring us in
an up-making for our loiTes on the other fide of time. Men, who
are not biind to their ou'n intereft, had need therefore to take
care of the choice of their rf/z^^?^??. if they neglccSt it allo-
gefher, as many now do, th-y forfeit ail prcfpetl of relit f.
If they choofe a wrong one, that is not able to reai h the end,
they are no lefs unhappy. The world may call them niiSy or
what elfe they pleafe^who either Vvhc-llv negled^anJ laugh over
all inquiries after reugion.ox who fuperficialiv look into matters
of this nature, and pafsa hady judgment: But fober rcafon 'ill
look on them zs Jcmezihat below the condition of the beafts that
perijh,

it is much to be regretted, that the bulk of mankind found
their principles, as well as practice and hopes, on no better
bottom than education^ which gives but too juft occahon for
the fmart refle<f?iiGn of the witty, though profane pott —

By education mon: have been mifled ;
So they believe, becaufe they were fo bred.
The pritR continues what the nurfe began ;
And thus the child impofcs on the man*.

Moft part feek no better reafon for their belief and pra6ilce
than cuflom and education. "Whatever thofe ofrer in principle,
they greedily Iwallovv down, and venture all on {o weak a bot-
tom. And this fure is one of the great realtors why fo many
mifcarry in this important matter. It is true, in this inquiring
age, many, efpecially of the better quality, fcorn this v;ay.
But it is to be feared that the greater part of them, flying on
extremes, as is comm.on in fuch cafes, have fallen into another
and a worfe one, if not to themfelves, yet certainly of more
pernicious confequencc to the public. They fet up for wits and
men of fnfe. Th y prcterd to have found cut great miflakes
in the principlesof their education, the religion of their coun-
try ; and thereon, without more ado, rejecl it in hulk, and
turn J^ep fie s in relij>ion. And yet after all this ncife, mofi of
them neither underhand the religion they rejeO, nor knoiv"
they what to fubi^itute in its room, which is certainly an error
of the worft confcquv-nce imaginable to the public ; fince men
once arrived at this pals, can never be depended on. Men

may

^ /////^ and Fanther.

INTRODUCTION, 45

may talk what thev pleafe. A man of no religion is a ir.an
not to be bound, and therefore is abfolutely urn-eet fcr any
fhare in a fociety, which cannot fublift, if thefacred ties of re-
ligion hold it not together.

But whatever courfe fuch perfcns, on the ore h?nd or other,
fteer, the more conndeiate and better part of mankind, in n.at-
ters of fo high importanre, v\ili, with the niceft care, try all,
thyt xYicy m3iy hold j aft what is good- If a man once urder-
ftands the importance of the cafe, he v\ill find reafon to look
fome dei per, and think more ferioufiy cf this matter, than ei-
ther the unthinking gcneialiiy., who receive all in bulk, with-
out trial, as it is given them, or, the forward xLOuld be-ziits,
that oftentimes are guilty of as great, and much micre pcrnicicus
credulity in rejc(S^ing all, as the other in receiving all.

But whereas there is fo many different rehgicns in the world,
and all of them pretend to ccndud us in tl is imiportant
inquiry; which of them fhall we choofe ? The deijht to
drive us into their religion, which ccnfiils only of five articles,
agreed to, as they pretend, by all the world, would bear us in
hand, that a choice is impcffible to be made of any particular
religion, till we have gone through, with luch a parti;, ular exa-
mination of every pretender, and all things that can be faid for
or againft it, as no man is able to make. Blount tells us, as
Herbert before had done, That ** unlefs a man read all authors,
*' fpeak with all learned men, and know all languages, it is
** impoffible to come to a clear lolition of all doubts*." And.
fo in effect, it is pretended impclhble to be fatisficd about the
truth of any particular religion. If this realcning did hold, I
fhould not doubt to m.ake it appear, that no truth whatfcever is
to be received ; and in particular, that their, fo mi;'{ h boaOed
of, catholic rdigion, cannot rationally be entettained by any
man. If we can be fatisficd upon rational grounds about no
truth, till we have heard and confidered all, that not only has
been faid, but may be alleged againft it; what truth cr;n we
believe ? Here it is eafy to obierve that fome cannct do, unlefs
they overdo. The intendment of fuch reafonii/g is obvious:
Some men would caft us loofe as to all religion, that mc may-
be brought under a neceflity to take up with any fancy they
fhall be pleafed to offer us; a man that is finking will take hold
ofthemoft tender twig. 1 he Fapids have vigoroufiy purfucd

this

* Blount's Rellgio Laid, page 91. Herbert's Rdi^io Laia'i page 12.

46 INTRODUCTION.

fills courfe in opporition to the Proteftants, to drive them into
the arms of their vrfaltibU guide. And indeed the learned
HerbcTt's reafonings on this point, after whp^rj the modern
deiils do but copy, feem to be borrowed from the Romanilh,
and are U' ged upon a defign not unfavourable to the church of
Kome, of which perhaps more afterwards.

But io wave this thin fophiOry ; any one that will, with a
fujtabie applicalion, engage in the confidcrntion of what rell*
gion he is to choofe, will quickly find himfelf eafed of this
isrmanageablc tafk, which the dt;ifts would (et him. His in-
quiry will foon be brought \o a narrow compafs, and the pre-
tenders, that will rcquiie any nice conlideralior;, will be found
very ^t\v.

For, a very overly confideration of the religion in the hea^
then worlds will give any confiderate mind ground enough to
relt fully aiTured, that the defired fah*sfa6\ion as to future hap'
f/incfs, and the ivicans of attaining it, are not thence to be ex-
pedied. Here he will not find what may have the leaft appear-
cncc of fatisf)'ing. The wifefi of the heathens fc^rce ever pre-
tended to fatisfy tl^mfelves, much lefs others, upon thefe
heads. All things' here are dark, vain, incoherent, inconfif-
tent, wild, and plainly ridiculous for n>oft part ; as will fur-
ther appear in our progrefs. Their religions were, generally
fpeaklng, calculated fvjr other pyrpofes, and looked not {o far
as eternity.

Nor will it be more difficult to get over any Hop that the
religion of Mahomet may lay In our inquirer's way. Let ^
man feiioully perufe the Alcoran, and if he has his fenfes a-
bout him, he cannot but there fee the moft pregnant evidences
of the groOrcft, moft fcandalous and impudent impofture, that
ever was obtruded upon the world. Here he muft expeit no
other evidence for what he is to believe, but the bare aifertion
of one, who was fcandalouOy impious to that degree, that his
own followers know not how to apologize for hitn. If you in-
quire for any other evidence, you are doomed by the Alcoran
to everlafting ruin, and his ilavcs are ordered to dci\roy you *.
Me forbids any inquiry into his religion, or the grounds of 'it,
and therefore you muff cither admit iri bulk the entire bundle
of fopperies, inconfiftencies, and lliocking abfurdities, that are
cafl together in the Alcoran, without any tr^al, or rejetl ail ;

And

* Alcoran, chap. 4.

INTRODUCTION. 4?

And In Ihi^ cafe, no wife man will find it hard to make -^
choice.

After one has proceeded thus far, he may eafily fee, that hg
is now inevitably cafl upon one of four concluficrs : Either ifl^
He niuft conclude it cerlain that all religion is vain, that there
is nothing to be expecled after this life, and (o commence athe-
ift. Or 2dly, He muli conclude, that certainty is not attaina^
'kle in thefe things; and io prove fieptic Oc ^dly, He miifb
pretend, that every one's reafon unqffijled is able to conducl
him in matters of religion^ afcertain him of future happinefs,
and dire6t as to the means of attaining it ; and to fst up for
natural religion, and turn deijl. Or 4rhly, He muft acquiefc<;
in the revealed religion contained in the fcriptures, and fo turn
Chrijiian, or at leaf! Jew*

As to the firn of thefe courfes, no man w^ill go into it, till
he has abandoned reafon. An atheift is a monfter in nature.
That there is nothing to be expected after this life, and that
man's foul dies with his body, is a defperate conclufion, which
ruins the foundation af all human happinefs ; even in the judg-
ment of the dcifls themfelves*. There are two material ex-
ceptions which are fufficieat to deter any thinking man from
clofing with lU

The one is, the kidequfnefs of its afpeB, Annihilation is fo
horrible to human nature, and has fo frightful a vifage to mea
who have a defire of perpetuity, inlaid in their very frame,
that none can look at it ferioufly vviihout the utmofl dread. It
is true, guilty atheifts would fain take fan6iuary here; yet,
were they brought to think feriouily of the cafe, they would
r.ot find that relief in it which they projeiS^. I have been cre-
dibly informed, that a gentleman of no contemptible parts, who
had lived as if indeed he were to fear or hope nothing after
time, being in prifon, and fearing death, (though he efcaped
it and yet lives) fell a thinking ferioufly, when alone, of anni"
hilation: And the fears of it bad fo deep and horribie impref-
fion on his mind, th-it he profciTed to a gentleman, who made
him a vifit in prifon, and found him in a grievous damp, that
the thoughts of annihilation were fo dreadful to him, that he
had rather think of a thoufand years in hell. GuiUy finners,
to cafe their confciences, and fcreen them from the difquiet'ng
apprchenfions of an after-reckoningy retreat to this, as a refuge ;

but

* jLctler to a Deifl, page 125.

4S INTRODUCTIOIvf*

but tVscy think no more about it, faveonly this and that in an
overly wav, that it will free them from the puniihment they
dreid and deferve. Bat if they would fedately view it, and
take und^r their confideration all the horror of the cafe, their
natures would recoil and (brink : It would create uneafinefs
initead of qjiet, and increafe the ftrait rather than relieve
them from it.

Bofides, which is the other exception againft^ it, were there
never fo much comfort ia it, as th^re is none, y^i it is i?n^
pofjibk to prove that there is nothing after this lije. There is
nothing that is tolerable can be faid for it. None fhall ever
evince the certainty of the foul's dyin:r with the bo^y, till he
lias overthrown the bun^ of a God, which can never be done fo
lon^ as there is any thing certain among men. Further, as there
Js little or nothing to be faid for it, fo there is much to be
faid aa:ains1 it. Reafoi atfbrds violent prefumptions, at leaf^,
for a future ftate. And all the arguments, which conclude for
the truth of Chriiiianity, join their united force to fupport the
certainty of a ftue after this life. Till thefe are removed out
of the wa/, there is no accefs for any to enjoy the imaginary
comfort of this fuppofition. But who will undertake folidly to
overrurn fo many arguments, which have flood the tefl of ages ?
They who are likely to be moR forward, and favour this caufe
mofl, dare fcarce allow thefe reafonings a fair hearing, which
plead for a future Hat?, for fear of rivetting the impreffion of
the truth deeper on their minds, which they defire to Oiake
themfelves loofe of. And how then will they overthrow
them? In fine, he is a madman, who will go into a conclu-
fion, whereof he can never be certain, and wherein, were it
fure, he can have no fatisfaflion. The firlt forbids the judg"
menty the lad diiTuades the zoiil and affeBions from reding in it.
As to the fecond conclufion above-mentioned, that fets up
iov fcepticifni in matters of religion, and bids us live at perad-
ventures as to what is to be feared or hoped after time ; it
is a courfe that nothing can jullify fave ahfolute neceffity. It
lies open to the worft of inconveniences. Nothing can be ima-
gined more melancholy than its confequences, and the pretences
to it are vain and frivolous.

If it is really thus, th it man can arrive at no certainty in
matters of religioa, aad about his ft ite after time, how deplo-
rable is mm's condition? His cafe is comfortlefs beyond what
can be well conceived. Nor can hij enjoyments aiford him

any

INTRODUCTION. 49

sfny folid fatisfa6lion^ while ghoflly death looks him in the face,
and the fvvord hangs over his head, fupported by a hair. Will
not the profpecl of this rueful change (of whofc difmal attend-
ants wef have given feme account) imbitter his fweetefl; enjoy-
ments ? And will not the horror of the cafe be much increafed
by refolving upon a perplexing uncertainty as to what may
come after? In how difmal a plight is the poor man, who on
the one hand is certain of the fpeedy arrival of death with all
its frightful attendants; and on the other, is told that he muft
rove in uncertainty, till the event clear him, whether he fhali
be entirely annihilated, and fo plunge into that horrible gulf
where atheifts feek faniSluary! or if he fhall not be hurried
headlong into thefe endlefs torments, which the confciences of
guilty finners, when awakened, prefage ; or,~ if he fhall foar
aloft into regions of endlefs blifs^ v/hich linfui mortals have but
little reafon to expe6f ; or, finally, whether he is not to launch
out into fome flats reducible to none of thefe. If here we be-
hoove to fix, one would not to know how to evite two con-
clufions that are horrible to think of : ** That our reafon,
** whereby we are capable of forefeeing^ and are affe6tcd with
'* things at a diftance, is a heavy curfe ; and that the profligate
" atheifl, who endeavours to mend this fault, in his ccnftitu-
** tion, by a continual debauch, that never allows him to think
'* any more of what is certainly to come, than if he were a
*' a brute incapable of forethought, is the wifeft man."

Befide, as was above infinuated, the pretences for this courfc
are vain. It is true, mofi; of thofe who fet up for wits in this
unhappy age, are mere fceptics in religion, who admit no-
thing as certain, but boldly queftion every thing, and live at
peradventures. Yet we are not obliged to think that this
fcepticifm is the refalt of a ferious inquiry, and the want of
certainty thereon ; but thofe gentlemen's way of living is in-
Confifient with ferious religion ; they are therefore defirous to
have fuch a fet of principles as may, if not favour them in the
practices they have a mind to follow, yet not incornmode them
fore. This principle gives not abfolute fecurity of impunity ;
but it feems, and but [terns, to juftify them in a prefent ne-
gle6\ of religion, and gives them a may he for an efcape
from feared and deferved punifhments ; and favours that lazi-
nefs that cannot fcarch for truth, where it lies not open to the
e)'e, even of thofe who care not to fee it. Their pra6tice artd
courfc of life Ihew them fo impatient of reflraints, that they

F tove

50 INTRODUCTION.

love liberty, or rather licentiovfnefs ; and are not 'willing td
come under any bonds. They greedily grafp at any difticulty
that feems to make never {o little agalnfl religion ; an evidence
that tliey bear it no real good-will. They neither converfe
much vith books, nor men, that may afford them fatisfa6tion,
in reference to tlieir real Icruples, which is proof enou^:;h they
defign not to be fatisfied. They are light and jocular in their
converfe about the mofi ferious matters ; an evidence that their
defign is not to be informed. It is a good obfervation of the
wife man, [Prov- xiv. 6,] A /corner Jeeketh wifdom and Jind'
eth it not : hut knowledge is cafy to him that underjlandeth*
This is the real myflery of the matter with thofe gentlemen^
whatever they may pretend.

I know they want not pretences, taking enough with the
unthinking, whereby they would jufllfy themfelves in their in-*
fidelity. The principal one is, that they find it eafy to load
religion with abundance of difhcullies, not eafily, if at all, ca-
pable of folution. But after all, thefe gentlemen ufe thofe ob^
jeBihns as the jceptics did of old, not fo much to maintain any
fettled principle, no not their beloved one, whereof now we^
fpeak ; as to create them work, and make fport w^ith thcfe wh»
would ferioufly confute them, and to ward off blows from them-
felves, who have neither principles nor pradlice capable of a
rational defence.

It is like indeed, that fometimes they may meet with fuch^
who although they own religion, are yet incapable of defending
it againfi fuch objec^.ions. But this is no wonder, fince there are
weak men of all perfuafions. And their weaknefs is, or ought,
not to be any real prejudice to the truth they maintain. Be-
fides, every one may know that ignorance of any fubjc6l is>
fertile of doubts, and will flart abundance of difficulties; where-
as it requires a more full and exa<5> acquaintance with the na-
ture of things to folve them ; and this falls not to every one's
fharc.

Further, if this be allowed a reafonable exception againfl
religion, that it is liable to exceptions not eafy to be folved,
it will hold as well good againfl all other forts of knowledge,
as againfi religion ; yea, and 1 may add, it concludes much
ftronger ,• for the farther a nv fubje6l is above our reach, the
lefs reafon v/e have to expedl;, that we fhall be capable of folv-
ing every difficulty that may be flarted againfl it. There is
no part of our knowledge, that is not incumbered with diffi-
culties,

INTRODUCTION. ^

cultles, as hard to be fatisfyingly folved, as thofc commonly
urjred againft religion. If this be a fufficient leafon to queftion
religion, that there are arguments which may be urged againft
it, not capable of a fair, or, at leaft, an eafy folutlon ; I doubt
not, upon the fame ground, to bring the gentlem.en who main-
fain this, if they will follow out their principle, to rejedt the
mofl evident truths, that we receive upon the credit of moral,
metaphyfical, and mathematical demonllrations ; yea, or even
upon the teftimony of our fenfes. For I know few of thefe
truths that we receive upon any of thofe grounds, againft which
a perfon of a very ordinary fpirit may not ftart difficulties,
which perhaps no man alive can give a fair account of; and yet
no m.an is fo foolifh as to call in queiUon thofe truths, becaufe
he cannot folve the diflicultics which every idle head may ftart
upon thofe fubje^ts. I m,ay give innumerable inOances of the
difficulties wherewith other parfs of human knowledge are em-
barralTed : I fliall only hint at a few.

That matter is diviiTible into, or at leaft confifts of indivifi-
ble points, is with fom.e a truth next to feJf-evident. That the
quite contrary is true, and matter is divifiblc in infinitumj ap-
pears no lefs certain to many others*. But if either of them
Ihould pretend themfelves capable of folving the difficulties,
that lie againft their refpecStive opinions, it were fufficient to
make all men of fenfe and learning doubt of their capacity and
judgment : For the difficulties on both hands are fuch, that no
ingenuous man that underftands them, will pretend himfeif
capable of giving a fair folution of thofe, which prefs that fide
of the queftion he is inclined to.

i^gain, whether we v/ill, or v^ill not, we muft believe one fide,
and but one fide, of the queftion is true; that either matter is di-
vifiblc in inJinitufUf or not ; that it confifts of indivifibles, or not ;
thefe are contradictions. Arid it is one of the moft evident propo-
iitions that the mind of man is acquainted with, that contradic-
tions

* Loch on Human Underjlandingi edit. 5, pag. 207. — " I would
" fain have inftanced in our notion of fpirit any thmg more perplexed}
^^ or nearer a contradicftion, than the very notion of body includes iii
** it; the divifibility /// infinitum of any finite extenfion, involving up,
" whether we grant or deny it, in confequenccs impoffible to be ex-
** plicated, cr mads in our apprehenfions confident; confequences that
" carry greater difficulty, and more apparent abfurdicy than any thing
. " that can fellow from the notion of an immaterial fubilancco"

^z INTRODUCTION.

tions cannot be true, or that both fides of a contradlciion can-^
not hold. And yet againit this truth, whereon much of our
nioft certain knowledge depends, iDiblnble difficuhies may be
Urged : For it may be pretended, that here both fides of the
contradiftlon are true, and this pretence may be enforced by the
arguments above-mentioned, which confirm the two oppcfite
opinions, which no mortal can anfuer. Shall M'e therefore be-
lieve thatcontradidions may be true ?

That motion is poffible I am not like to doubt, nor can I,
while 1 know that I can rifs ard walk ; nor is he like to
doubt of it, who fees me walk. And yet I doubt not the mofl
ingenious of our atheiflical wits w^outd find himfelf fufficiently
llraitened, wete the arguments of Zeno Eleates againft motion
well urged, by a fubde difputant. I Ilia 11 offer one argument
j^gainll motion, which 1 am fully fatisfied will puzzle the mod
kibtle adverfaries of religion to folve fatisfyiagly. There are
ifrongcr arguments proving that matter is dlviiible in infinitum
than any mortal can folve or anfwer, though I perhaps believe
it untrue. And it is as certain as the fun is in the firmament,
that if matter is divifible in infinitum,, it confifls of an infinite
number of parts— (what fome talk of indefinite is a flielter of
ignorance, and if it is ufed any other way than as a fhield to
ward off difficulties for a while in a public difpute, the ufers
cannot be excufed either of grofs ignorance, rooted prejudice,
or dirmgenuity). This being laid down as proven, and pro-
ven it may be by arguments, which none living can fatisfy,
that matter is divifible in infinitum^ and that confequently it
contains an infinite num.ber of parts. Nor is it lefs certain,
that according to thefe conclufions laid down, if one body move
upon the furface of another, as for inilance, an inch in a mi-
nute's time, it mufi pafs by an infinite number of parts ; and it
is undeniable, that it cannot pafs one of that infinite number of
parts without fome portion of time. Now if fo, what a vaft
portion of lime will it require to make that little journey, which
we know can be performed in a moment ! Will it not evi-
d:::ntly require an eternity ! What dilficulty can any urge, more
difficult to be folvt'd, againfi religion than this? And yet for all
this he were a fool who would doubt of motion.
■ As to matliematical certainty, though many boalls are made
of the firmnefs of its demonfirations ; yet thefe may, upon this
ground, be called all in queftion. And 1 nothing doubt, that
Jf men's intereils, real or pretended, lay £*s crofs to them, as

they

INTRODUCTION.

53

thev are fuppofed to do to the truths of a religion, many more
exceptions might be made againft them, than are againft thole,
and upon full as good, if not better realbn. In juftification of
this aflertion, I might proceed to demonftrate how trifling even
the definitions of geometry, thefirmcft of all the mathematical
£ciences, are. Its definitions might be alleged, upon no in-
confiderable grounds, trifling, nonfenfical, and ridiculous.
Its demands or populates, plainly impracticable. Its axioms
or felf-evident propofitions, controvertible, and by themfelves
they are controverted. Any one who would fee this made good
in particular inftances, may confult (befides others) the learn-
ed Huetius' Demonjhatio Evangelica^ where, in the illufiration
of his definitions, axioms and poftulates, he compares them with
thofe of geometry, and prefers them to thefe, and (liews they arc
incumbered with fewer difficulties than the other, though with-
out derogating from the jufl worth and evidence of mathema-
tical fciences. Befides what he has obferved, I may add this
one thing more, that thofe fciences deferve not any great re-
gard, fave as they are applied to the ufe of life, and in a fub-
ferviency to man's advantage. And when thus they are ap-
plied to practice, the difficulty is confiderably increafed, and
thev may eafily be loaded with innumerable and infoluble in-
conveniences. For then, their definitions ceafe to be the defi-
nition of names, and are to be taken as the definitions of things
that arc a61ually in being. Their demands mufi: not be prac-
ticable, but put in pra6\ice. And who fees not how many in^
cxtricable difficulties the pra6lifcr will be caft upon ? The de-
montlration may proceed bravely fo long as they hold in the
theory, and mean by PunB-um, id cujus pars nulla eft* ; and the
fame may be faid of lines and furfaces, and all their figures ;
without obliging us to believe that really there are any fuch
things. But when we come to the pra6^ice, they mufi go further,
and take it for granted, that there are fuch points, lines, furfaces
and figures. This turns what was before only an explication of
a name, into the definition of a thing. And therefore I am
now left at liberty to difpute, whether there is any fuch thing ;
or, whether indeed it is poffible that there ffiould be luch.
And who fees not now, that they are incumbered with as m^a-
ny difficulties as may perhaps be urged again ft any fcience
whatfoever.

It

* « That which has no parts."

5^

INTRODUCTION.

It were encJJcfs to enumerate the things we mui't bellevej
without being capable to reiblvc the difficuhies about them.
The vericit Infidel mutl: fuppofe that fomething is eternal, or all
things are eternal, or that they jumped ir?to being without any
caufe. Whichlbever he (hall choofey he is led into a labyrinth
of difKculties, which no mortal wit can clear. We muft all own,
that either matter and motion are the principle of thought; or,
that there are immaterial fubftanccs which aiFetl; matter, and
are ilrungely aiFe6lcd by what befalr. it. Whichfoever hde
any Ihall choofe, he is caft upon inextricable difficulties.
Much more might be faid on this head ; but what has been
laid is more than enough to ibew, that if this courfe is ta-
ken, it faps the foundations of all human knowledge, and there
is no part of it fafe.

, BchJes, this way of queOIoning religion upon the pretence
of difl-icuities lyini^: againtl it, is contrary to the common fenfe of
iiianki'nd, contraditls the pra6lice of all wife men, and is in-
coafii'lent with the very nature of our faculties. For, if I have
a clear unexceptionable and convincing proof for any truth, it
is againft all reafon to reject it, becaufe I have not fo full and
comprehcnfive knowledge of the nature and circumOances of the
object, as is neceflary to enable me to folve all difficulties that
may occur about it : Yea, fuch is the nature of our faculties,
that to juftlfy in the opinion of the niceii inquirers after truth,
nay, to extort an afTent, clear proof is fufficlent ; whereas, to
untie all knots, and folve all obje6tions, perfect and compre-
henfive knowledge is abfolutely needful ; which man's condi-
tion allows him not to expe6t about the meaneft things. And
the more remote any thing lies from common obfervation, the
lefs reafon there is ftill to look for a fulhiefs of knowledfre and
exemption from difficulties. If therefore men will turn fceptics
in religion, to ju(Hfy themfelves, they muft attempt the proofs
whereon it is grounded. Sampfon-llke, they muft grafp the
pillars that fupport the fabric, and pull them down. If this is
not done, nothing is done. And he that will undertake this,
man have a fall view of their force, and find where there
flrength lies: Now a ferious view of this will be fuffixient to
deter any wife man from the undertaking.

la a word, this fcepticifm can yield no cafe or fatisfaif^ion to
a reafonable foul. For if a man Ihall thinls. rationaily, hh
reafon will fuggeft to him, that though all religion at prcfent
fceras uncertain to him, yet upon trial perhaps he may hnd the

grounds

i N T R O D U C T I b N. 55

grounds of religion fo evident, that he cannot withhold his af-
fcnt. This will at leaft oblige him to a ferious inquiry into
the truth. Next, in uncertainties (fuppofing, after ferious in-
quiry, he fiills thinks the truths of religion fuch) a prudent man
wiil incline to what is moft probable. Finally, he will choofe
and fteer luch a courfe of life as will be fafeit, in cafe he fhall in
experience afterward find, that there is a God, aiid a future ftate.
All which Qiew the folly of our fceptics, and, were it ferioufly
confidered, would much mar their defign, which is thereby to
juftify a licentious life.

Now we have confidered, and fufhcienlly crrpofed the two
firfl: branches of the above-mentioned choice : and confequently
every man mufl find himfelf caft upon a neceility of one of two.
He mufl either betake himfelf to natural religion^ and fo turn de-
iji ; or he mufl: embrace tht fcriptursSf and turn Chri/iian : Fot
as to the Jtwifli religion, it is not likely to gain many converts.

If therefore we are able to demonftrate the utter injufficiency
of natural religion^ in oppofition to tlie deijls who fet up for it,
we reduce every man to this choice, tjiat he muft be a Chrijlian
or an atheifl ; or, which is the fame upon the matter, a man
of no religion ; for an infiifficient religion is in effed none.
And to demonflrate this, that natural religion is utterly in fuffi-
cient, that unafTifled reafon is not able to guide us to happinefs,
snd fatisfy us as to the great concerns of religion, is the dellgn
of the fubfequent fheets. In them we have clearly flated and
endeavoured with clofenefs to argue this point. We have brought
the pleadings of the learned lord Herbert , and the modern deifisf
who do but copy after him, to the bar of reafon, examined their
utmofl force, and, if 1 miOake it not, found them weak and
inconcludent.

As for the occzfion of my engagement in this controverfy,
it was not fuch as commonly gives rife to writings of this
nature. I undertook it with no defign of publication. 1 was
provoked by no adversary in particular. But every man being
obliged to underftand upon what grounds he receives his reli-
gion, I fludled the point for my ov/n fatisfadion, and in com-
pliance with my duty.

As for the reafons of my undertaking this part of the contro-
verfy, I ihall not fay much. The only vi^ife GOD, wJio has
determined the times before appointed, and made of one, blood all
nations of men that dwell on tke earthy has appointed them the
hounds of their habitation , cut out different pieces of work for

for

56 I N T R O n U C T I O N,

them, t^a them into different circumflances, and hereby ejc-
pofcd them to trials and temptations that are not of the fame
kind. As every man is obliged to cuhivate in the heft manner
he can the bounds of land affigned to him, and defend his pof*
feffions ; fo every one is concerned to imprdve and defend after
the heft form he may, thofe truths, vi^hich his circumftances
have obliged him to take peculiar notice of, and his temptations,
of whatever fort, have cndeavcured, or may attempt to wreft
out of his hands.

Beiides, we live in a warlike age, wherein every one mufl:
be of a party in matters of religion. And religion is a caufe
in which, when difputed, no man is allowed to ftand neutral.
As all are concerned to choofe the right fide, fo every one is
obliged to provide himfelf with the beft armour his arfenal can
afford, both for defending himfelf and others that own the fame
caufe, and to annoy the common enemy. Nor is this work
peculiarly confined unto thofe, who by office are obliged to it:
For, in publico difcrimini eft omnis homo miles **

Befides, it is well known, that the mofl bold attempt that
ever was made upon revealed religion, fincc the entrance of
Chriflianity into the world, has been made, in our day, by
men, who {ti up for natural religion, and who have gone over
from Chrijlianity unto a refined Paganifmy under the name of
Deifm, Two things they have attempted ; to overthrow revela^
tion, and to advance natural religion. The lafl work has been
undertaken, I may without breach of charity boldly fay it, not
fo much out any real atfe6^ion to the principles or duties of na-
tural religion, as to avoid the odium inevitably following upon
a renunciation of all religion ; and becaufe they faw that men
would not eafily ^quit Chriftianity, without fomething were
fubftitated in its room, that might at lead have the name of
religion. Revealed religion has been worthily defended by
many, of old ^md of late, at home and abroad ; but the in-
J ujficiency of natural religion has been lefs infilled on, at leaft:
in that way tliat is necelfary to ftraiten an obftinate adver-
fary. And feveral things incline me to think an attempt of
this 'nature feafonable, if not neceflfary, at this time.

The times are infectious, and deifm is the contagion that
fpreads. And that which has taken many, particularly of dSr
vnwary youth of the better quality, off their feet, and engaged

them

* « In a time of public danger every man is a foklier,'*

INTRODUCTION. 57

them to efpoiife this caufe, is the high pretence that this way-
makes to rcafoti* They tell us, that their religion is entirely
reafonable, and that they admit nothing, lave what this dictates
to them, and they endeavour to reprelent others as eafy and
credulous men. Now I thought it meet to demonftrate, for
undeceiving of fuch, that none are more credulous, no-ne have
lefs reafon upon their fide, than they who fet up for rational
religion i

Again, we have flood fufficiently long upon the defenfive
part, we have repulfed their efforts againtl revelation. It feems
now feafonable, that we fhould a6l offenfively, and try how
they can defend their own religion, and whether they can give
as good account of it as has been given of Chriftianity. To
fiand always upon the defenfive part, is to make the enemy
doubt ours, and turn proud of their own ftrength.

The reafonablenefs of this will further appear, if we confiSer
the quality of the adverfaries we have to do with, and their man-
ner of management. The enemies who have engaged revealed
religion, fenfible of their own wcaknefs to defend themfelves at
home, and endure clofe fight, do commonly make inroads, where
they expe6l none, or a faint refiftance. They defign not fo
much to conquer, as to dillurb. Jeft, buffoonery, or at bed
fophifms, and fuch little artifices, are the arguments they ufe,
and the weapons of their warfare. The beft way to make fuch
rovers keep as home is, to carry the war into their own coun-
try, and to ruin thofe retreats they betake themfelves to when
attacked. They have feen what Chriftians can fay in defence
of revealed religion. It is now high time to fee how they can
acquit themfelves on behalf of ;2«/2;r^/ r^/2'^z(7?2. It is eafy to
impugn. It is a defence that gives the beft proof of the' de-
fender's fkill, and fays mofl for the caufe he maintains.

I own indeed that moft who have evinced the truth of revealed
religion, have faid fomething of the weaknefs of natural reli-
gion. But this has only been by the bye, and in a way too loofc
to ftraiten obflinate oppcfers, not to Ipeakof the too large con-
ceffions that have been made them by fome.

Finally, natural religion being the only retreat, to which
the apoftates from Chriflianity betake themfelves, and whereby
they think themfelves fecured from the imputation of plain ^Z^^-
iffn, it is hoped, that a full and convincing difcovery of its
weaknefs, may incline fuch as are not quite debauched, to
look how they quit Chriftianity, and engage with that which.

5$ INTRODUCTION.

if tins attempt is fuccefsfuJ, muft henceforward pafs for dif^
guifed athtifm.

It now only remains, that I offer fome account of the rcafong
that have induced me to manage this controverfy in a method
So far different from that which is commonly ufed. The rea-
fons of this have been above infinuated, and I fhall not infiH:
rhuch further on them, left I (hould feem to detraft from per-
formances to v.'hich I pay a very great regard. The method
fome have choien, in managing this controverfy with the deifts,
to me appears inconvenient. They begin with an endeavour
to eftablilli the grounds of natural religion ^ and by the help of
light borrowed from re7jelation, they carry the matter fo far, and
extend natural relii^lon to fuch a compafs, that it looks pretty
complele-like ; which has too evident a tendency to leilen its
real deJtBs^ and make them appear inconfiderable.

Again, I am afraid that fome have gone near to give up the
whole caufe. This fault I would be very loth to charge upori
all. Many I know have dealt faithfully in it, and defervei
praife. But how to excufe fome in this cafe I know not. One
tells us that, ** It is true indeed, that natural religion declares
** and comprizes all the parts of religion, that are generally
** and in all times either neceflary or requifite*!" And much
more to the fame purpofe. This is m.uch fuch another af-*
fertion of the weaknefs of natural religion againfl the de-
ifts, as the fame author gives us of the perfection of the fcrip-*-
turest in oppofition to the fame perfons in another place of
his book. ** 1 could," fays he, *' prove, 1 think, by undenia-
** ble, unavoidable inftances f," what Mr. Gregory of Oxford
fays in his preface to fome critical notes on the fcriptures that
he publifned, viz. " That there is no author whatfoever that has
** fufFered fo much by the hand of time as the Bible has." Is
this the way to overthrow the fufficiency of natural religion, and
to defend the fcriptures? This is not the only remark 1 could
make upon this author, were it my defign. But this may let
us fee how neceffary it is to deal a little more plainly with
the afferters of natural religion.

Further, to adorn natural religion with the improvements
borrowed from revelation, is the ready way to furnifh thofe

who

* Difcourfe concerning Natural and Revealed Religion, by Stephen
Nye, Part 2, Cnap. i, page 97,
t Ubi Ju^ra, page 199,

INTRODUCTION.

59

who fet up for its fufficicncy, with pretences to ferve their de-
^\gnf and to ftraiten themielves, when they come to fhew its
defects. And perhaps I (hould not miftake it far, if I alTeited,
that the ftrongeft arguments urged by deifts, have been drawn
from unwary conceflions made them by their adverfaries.

And this is the more confiderable, that the perfons, with
whom we have to do in this controverfy, are, generally fpeak-
ing, either of no great difcerning, or fmall application; who
have no great mind to wait upon the bufinefs, or look to the
bottom of It. Now when fuch perfons find many things gran-
ted, they are ready to think all is yielded, and fo run away
with it, as the caufe were their own. That fuch conceffions
have done no good fervice, there is too much reafon to believe.
This I am fare of, it would have been long before the deifts
could have trimmed up natural religion fo handfomely, and
made it appear io like a fufficlent religion^ as fome have done,
who meaned no fuch thing.

Finally, the apoftle Paul's method is doubtlefs moft worthy
of imitation, who, when he is to prove juflification by faith,
and enforce an acceptance of it, flrongly convinces of fin, and
the utter infufficiency of works for that purpofe. The bet> way
in my opinion, to engage men to clofe wi\h revealed 7'eligion,
is flrongly to argue the infufficiency of natural religion*

As to the performance iti'elf, and what I have therein at-
tained, I am not the judge competent. Every reader mud judge
as he fees caufe. I have not the vanity to exped that it fhould
pleafe every bodv. The vafi compafs of the fubjecl, the va-
riety of the purpofes, the uncommonnefs of man\', if not moil
of them, with refpedl to which I was left to walk in untrod-
den paths, and other difficulties of a like nature, with candid
and judicious readers will go a great way towards my excufe
in lefler efcapes. As for the fubftance of the enfuing difcourfe,
I am bold to hope, that upon the ftrittefi; trial it fhalj be found
|rue, and pleaded for in words of truth and fobernefs.

AN

A N

INQUIRY

INTO THE

PRINCIPLES of the MODERN DEISTS.

CHAP. I.

Giving a Jhort Account of the Ri/e, Occafions, and Progrefs of
Dafm, efpecially in England, the Opinions of the Deijis, and
the different Sorts of them,

X HERE is no man, who makes it his concern to
underftand what the ftate of religion has, of late years, been,
and now is, particularly in thefe nations, but knows that defm
has made a confiderable progrefs. Since therefore it is againft
thofe, who go under this name, that this undertaking is defjgn-
cd, it is highly expedient, if not plainly neceflary, that in
the entry, we give fome account of the occafiont and rife oi
deijm, the principal opinions of the deifs, and fome other
things that may tend to clear the matter difcourfed in the
fubfequent fheets.

It is not neceflary that we inquire more largely Into the
caufes of that general defe6lion in principle and praBice from
the ^(?^n7Zd of the ^^d?/ which now everywhere obtains; this
has been judlciouiiy done by others.

Nor will it be needful to write at length the hiflory of deifnu
This I think impravSlicable, becaufe the growth of this feH has

been

62 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap, u

been verv A"cret, and they have generally dlfguifed their opi-
nions. And pei haps till of late, they Icarce had any fettled
opinion in matters of religion^ if yet they have. But though ■
it were practicable, as it is not, yet It is not neceflary to our pre-
fent undertaUno; ; and if it were attempted, would require more
helps, and more kifure, belldes ether things, than 1 am mafter

One has of late written a ramphJet bearing this title, ** An
Account of the Growth of Deifm in England */'^ 1 he author,
if he is not a deift, yet has done v. hat in him lies to promote
ti'tir caufe, by fetting off, with all the art and addrets he is
mailer of, thofe things which, he f.jys, have tempted many to turn
deiiis, without any attempt to anudote the poilcn of them.

Another has wrote R?fe8ions upon this pamphlet, wherein
he has fufiRciently fncwn, that thole alleged by the former au-
thor, v/ere not fufiicient reaibns to jiifiify any in turning deifl.
But I conceive that is not the main queOJon. If he had a
mind to difprove the other author," he Ihould haye made It ap-
pear, that t'he partlcuLrs condefcended upon by bis antagonift,
had no real influence into this apuftafy. Whether they gave a juft
caufe for it, is another queflicn. I am fatisfied they did not.
But neither do thofe ?Y^y^?zj of this defe^ion, condescended on
by the reJleSer, give a fufficlent ground for it. Nor are there any
reafons that can juftify any in reiinquiihing Chrifiianity. The
inquiry in this cafe Is not. What juft grounds have the delfts
to warrant them in, or engage tiiem to this defe£tion? for all
Chriaians own ic impofiibie th?y ihould have any. But the
quetlion is, WHiat has e,iven occahon to any, thus to fall olF
from our religion ? Now I conceive both thefe writers have hit
upon federal of the Arz^^ r^^/o;z5 of this; though the firft is ap-
parently 8;uiltv oUeeb imprudence, 1 wiib I might not lay ma-
lice, againPi Chriftianity, in propofmg thofe temptations, with
all }he' advantajre he could give them, and that without any
antidote : For vvhich and other faults he has been juftly, though
mod eft] y, cenfured by the rejleStr.

- Although both of them has given fome account of this matter, ,
yet 1 conceive (o much has not been faid as may fuperfede a
further inquiry, or make us defpair of obferving not a few
things that have not haJ an Inconfiderable influence, which
are overlooked by both. W^iereforc wc Ihall In a few words

propoie

* Printed anno 169c.

PRINCIPLES 01^ THE MODERN DEISTS. 6^

propofe our opinion of this matter. And In delivering it, we
Jliall not piuTue the defign of any party, but make it evident
that all parties have had their own acceflfion to the growth o£
this eml. Thouith 1 am fenfible th<it this account will fall hca-
yy upon 21 /et of men in particular, who have of late years
claimed the name of the Church of England, though unjufily ;
if we take her Homilies, Articles, ard the confentlent judg-
ment of her renowned bifhops from the time of the Pvcfoimation
to bilhop Laud's time, for the Oandard of her do6\rine*; and I fee
no reafon whv we ought not. I premiied this to avoid any fuf-
picion of a defign to brand the Church of England, with an
acceffion to the growth oj dnjni. And even in fpeakLg of
that ftt of men, whom I take to be principally guilty, I would
not be underftood to fpeak fo much of the defign of the men, as
cf the noJive tendency of their doBrine and praBices-

The many groundlefs, nay ridiculous pretecces to revelation^
and bold impoftures of the Church of Rome, and cf thofe m ho
have fupportcd that intereli ; their impudence In obtruding up-
on the world, doctrines crofs to rea/c-n and fe?ife, and princi-
ples of morality fubverfive of the whole law of nature + ; their
fcandalous endeavour to befpatter the fcrlptures, and weaken
their authority, on purpofe to bring them into difcredit, to
make way for the defigaed advancement of their wild traditions
into an equality with them, and to bring t'ne v/orld under a ne-
ceffity of throwing themfelves upon the care and conduft of
their infallible guide, though they cannot yet tell us v^hich Is
he ; their grofs and difcernible hyrocrify in carrying on fecubr,
nay impious and unjuft def'gns, under the fpecious pretences
of holinefs and religion ; their zeal for 2. form and few cf re-
ligion, a worPnip plainlv theatrical %, v/hile the lives of their
Popes, Cardinals, Monks, Nuns, and all their higheR pre-
tenders to devotion have been fcandalouHv lewd, even to a
proverb ^ ; the immoral morality, atheipical divinity, and
abominable praBices of the Jefults, thofe zealous fupporteis and
ftrongeft props of the Poplili intercft, but in very deed the worft
enemies of mankind, the fubverters of ail true piety, morality,

and

* Sec Bifhop of Sarum's Explanation of the Thirty-nine Artick?,
on Art. 17 ; pag. 168.

+_ Growth of Deifin, pag. 5. Pvefleaions on it, pag. 8.

X See jefuit's ^^ orals.

§ Ciarkfon's Pradicai Divinity of FapiOis,

^4 An inquiry into the chap. i.

and govermnent in the world ; thefe, I fay, together with ma-
ny other evils of a like nature, every where obfervablc in that
church, have been, for a very long time too evident and grofs
to be denied, or hid from perfons of any tolerable fagacity,
living among them. And, by the obfervation of thofe and the
like evils, continued in, approved, juftified, and adhered unto ;
and the cruelty of that church in dcftroying all thofe, who
would not receive, by wholefale, all thofe (hocking abfurditieSj
not a few who lived among them, and were unacquainted with
the power of religion, that was nccelTary to engage them cordially
to efpoufc the Reformed intereft, got their minds leavened with
prejudices, and furnifhed with fpecious pretences againft all
revealed religion ; which they the more boldly entertained, be-
caufe they knew it was lefs criminal to turn athujl than Fro-
Ujlant in places where the Popiih intereft prevailed.

Thefe prejudices once taken up, daily grew ftronger, by
the obfervation of new inftances of this fort, and the conftancy
cf thofe of that communion in a6ting the fame part, i^nd men
of wit and learning, who fooneft faw into this myftery, and
had no inward bonds on them, failed not to hand about and
cultivate thofe pretences to that degree, that many begun to
own their apoftafy, if not openly, yet more covertly.

Not long after the beginning of the laft elapfed century, fo
far as I can learn, fome in France and Italy began to form
a fort of new a party. They called themfelves Thnjls, or Deifts ;
unjuftly pretending that they were the only perfons who owned
the One true God» And hereby they plainly intimated that they
had reje6ted the name of Chrift, They reje<5led all revelation
as clicatf prisjlcraftf and impojluref pretending that there was
nothing fincere in religion, fave what nature s light taught.
However, being generally perfons too fond of a prefent life,
and too uncertain about a future, they thought it not meet to
put too much to the hazard for this their pretended religion. It
was a refined fort of Paganifm which they embraced, and they
were to imitate the Heathen phllofophers, who, whatever their
peculiar fentiments were in matters of religion, yet for peace's
iake, they looked on it as fafe to foP.ow the mode, and com-
ply v/ith the religious ufages that prevailed in the places where
they lived. That which made this party the more confidera-
ble was, that it was made up of men, who pretended to learn-
ing, ingenuity, breeding, and who fet up for wits* They
pretended to write after the copy of the new philofophers, who

fcorned

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 55

fcorned that philcfophical ilavery, which former ages had l:ecn
under to Ariftotie. They inculcated that crcduiiiy was no ief's
dangerous in matters of religion than in matters of philofophy.
And herein certainly they were not miOakcn. But one may
iuftly fufpea, that at the fame time, while they pretended to
guard againi^ eafmefs in believing, they have fallen into the
worli credulity, as well as ruining incredulity^ For none is fo
credulous as an atheift*

Much about the fame time^ fome novel opinions began to be
much entertained in Holland, in matters of religion. The
broachers of them being men learried and diligetit, carefully
cultivated them, till lliey were ripened into fomething very
near-akin to plain Socinianifm, which is but one remove from
deifm. It v/as not long after this when thofe new-fangled
notions took footing in England and began to be embraced and
countenanced by fome topping churchmen, who, forgetful of their
Articles, Homilies, aud Subicriptions, and the conduct of their
predeceQbrs, carefully maintained^ and zealcully propagated
this new divinity.

I fhall not make bold to judge what the defigns of thofe
were, who appeared moil; zealous for thefe new notions: 1 his
is to be left to the judgment of him, who fearches the heart of
the children of men, and will bring forth things that arc now
hid* But there M'ere not a few reafons to fufpedl that the Jefuits
had a confiderable hand in diffeminating them, and that the
others were their tools ; though it is likely they did not fufpe6t
this. The Jefuits vaunted that they had planted xYit fovereign
drug of Arminianifm in England, which in time would purge
out the northern herefy *. This it could not olherwife do, than by
fliaking men as to all principles of religion. And it is a known
maxim, that make men once atheifls it will be eafy to turn tltem pa-
pifis' The jealoufies many difcerning people had of this, were
confiderably increafed when it was feen with what violence the
abettors of this new divinity appeared againfl the more moderate
part of the Church of England, as well as the DifTenters, upon the
account of fome ceremonies, owned by themfelves as indifierent
in their own nature ; while at the fame time, they exprefled
a great deal of tendernefs, if not refpe6t to the Chuixh of
Rome, and made propofals for union with her.

But

* Rulh worth's CoUea. Part 1, pjg. 475. Letter by a Jefuit to the
Redor of Eruffels, See pag. 62, ihid^

H

66 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. i.

But whatever there is as to this, it is certain that this divinity
opens a door, and has given encouragement to that apoftafy
from Chriftianity, that has fince followed, and ftill increafes,
under the name of deifm.

Tliis divinity teaches us, that no more is neccffary to be be-
lieved, in order to falvation, fave what is confefled and owned
by all that are called Chriftians. Dicunt fe non videre unde,
cut quo mode, prater pauca ijla, qua apud omnes in conjejfo
funt, alia plura adhuc mccjfaria cjft cjlendi aut elici pojjit* \
that is, *' They fee not how it can be made appear, that be-
*' fides thefe few things, which are by them allowed, any o-
** thers are neceflfaiy to falvation." Confonantly hereto, they
exprefsly deny any thing to be fundamental which has been
controverted, or aftervv'ards may be fo f* In a word, they teach
that we are not necefl'arily to believe any thing, fave what is
evident to us. And that only is to be reckoned evident, which
is confeffed by all, and to which nothing that has any appearance
of truth can be oppofed. Now after this, what is left in Chrif-
tianity ? The divi?iity ^ the purity, the pefeBion and fufficiency o{
the /criptjires]; xhe Trinity, Deity of Chrijl, hisfatisjat'iion, the
whole difpenfation of the Spirit, juflfication by faith alone, and all
the ^r^/c/^j of the Chriflian religion, have been and are con-
troverted. None of them therefore is neceflary to falvation. Are
not men left at liberty, without hazard of their falvation, to re-
nounce all, fave what is common to Chriflianity with natural
religion ? and fince even fome of its mofl confiderable articles
zhoxxixhe attributes oiGOV> 2iud his providence, future rewards
^ndpuni fitments, have been, or may be controverted, why may we
not reckon them unneceffary too? The dei/^s have borrowed their
doBrine of evidence, and oppofed it to the Chrflian religion* One
of them tells us, *' If our happinefs depends upon our belief,we
** cannot firmly believe, till our reafon be convinced of a fuper-
** natural religion {.'* And if the reafons of it were evident, there
could be no longer any contention about religion. How little
does this differ from that divinity, which tells us, that GOD is
obliged to offer us fuch arguments to which nothing that has an
appearance cf truth can be oppofed ! And if this beCwanting,
they are not to be received as articles of faith* Now if after

this

* Reraonftr, Apol, Fol. 12.

+ Hi, Cap. 24,. lol. 276; and Cap. 25, Fol. 283,

% Oracks of Keafon, p:^g. 20&. Letter by A. W. to C. Blount.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 67

this the deifts can but offer any thing that has an appearance
of truth againft Chriftianity, they are free to reje£l it iji cumulo.

This divinity reduces Chriftianity to 7nere morality. Nothing
cKq is univerfally agreed to, if that be fo. ** The fuppofition
** of fin, (fays one that wore a mitre) does not bring in any
** new religion, but only makes new circumftances and names
** of old things, and requires new helps and advantages to im-
** prove our powers, and to encourage our endeavours : And
** thus the law of grace is nothing but a reflitution of the law of
" nature* "

And further, left we fhould think this morality, wherein they
place the whole of Chriflianity, owes its being to the agency of
the fan6iifying Spirit, we are told, that ** the Spirit of God,
** and the grace of Chrift, when wicd as diftinft from moral a-
** bilities and performances, fignify nothing f." And a com-
plaint is made of fome, v/ho fill the world ** with a buz and
*' noife of the divine Spirit :j:." Hence many fermons were ra-
ther fuch as became the chair of a philofopher, teaching ethzcks,
than that of one, who by office is bound to know and preach
7iothing fave Chrijl and him crucified- Heathen morality has
been lubftiiuted in the room of gofpel holinefs. And ethicks
by fome have been preached inftead of the gofpel of Chrift,
And if any complaints were made of this conducl, though by
men who preached the neceffity of holinefs, urged by all the
gofpel motives, and carefully pra6^ifed what they preached in
their lives, they were expofed and reje6led, and the pcrfons
who offered them were reflecS^ed on as enemies to morality ;
whereas the plain truth of the cafe was, they did not complain
of men being taught to be moral, but that they were not taught
fomewhat more.

After men once were taught that the controverted docS^rines
of religion were not neceflfary to falvation, and that all that
was necelFary thereto was to be referred to and comprehended
■\xndzT mGf'alityi2Lud that there was no need of regeneration, or the
ifandiifying inftuences of the Spirit of Chrift in order to the per-
formance of our duty, it is eafy to fee how light the difference
was to be accounted betwixt a Chrifiian and an honeft moi-al
lleatken* And if any fmall temptation offered, how natural

was

* S. Park's Defence of Ecclef. Poli. pag. 324.
f Idem ibid, pag. 345.
% Ecclef. Polit. pag. 57.

68 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE^ chap. i.

v,'35 it for men to judge that the hazard was not great, to flep
over from Chrijlianity to dtijmt which is Paganil?n a-la-rnode.
And to encourage them to it, it is well known how favourably'-
many ufed to exprefs themfelves of the flate of the Heathens ;
little nun lin^ that the ChrilHan reh'gion reprefcnts them a'5
rvithout God, and tuilhout C'lrijl, and without hope, children of
zv ra I k , a n d dead in' t refpa/fcs and fn s .

I need not {land to prove that tliis divinity is nearly alh'ed to
Socinia'jifm. It is we!) known that they rfckon the Socinians
found in the fundamentals, and therefore tJiink them in no ha-
7.:\xAi provided they live nmrally. Hence iFien have been em-
boldened to turn Socin'ans. And everybody may fee by what
€A'[y removes, one may from Socinianifm arrive at deifm. For
my part I can fee little ditFerence betwixt the two- The deift
indeed fcims the honefter man of the two ; he reje£fs the gof-
pcl, and ownsthjt he does fo ; The other, I mean the Soci-
ninn, pretends to retain it, but really rejecl^s it. But I fliali
not iiihil any further in difccvering the tendency of this nezu
divinity to lihtrtiynjm and deifmy fjnce others have fully and ju-
dicioully done it from the rnofl unqueOionable arguments and
documents. And niore cfpecially, fmce in {dCi it is evident,
that wherever this new divinity has obtained, Socinians and
delfts abound, and many who embrace it daily go over to them ;
whic'i 1 take to be the fureO: evidence, if it be duly circum-
itantiate, of the tendency of this docfrine to encourage thofe
opinions, and ieaft liable to any jufl; exception. And perhaps
I might add, that few, comparatively very few, v/ho own the
contrary dodlrine, have gone into this new way, where that di-
vinity has not been entertained.

But to return whence v/e have fora little dIc:reued,to the Hate
of religion in England. No fooner were they advanced to
pozvn who had drunk in thofe opinions, but prefently the doc-
trines that are purely evano;eiical, by which the anofiles con-
verted the world, the Reformers promoted and carried on our
reformation from Popery, and the pious preachers of the Church
of England did keep fomewhat of the life and power of religion
amongli their people ; fhefe do6irines, I fav, began to be de-
cryed ; julllficiation by the righteoufnefs of Chriil, which Lu-
ther calK*d Articulus ftantis aut cadenris eccfcfiv*^ that rif-
de?nptioii that ts in himy even the forgivenfs of fins though

faith

* " An article by winch the church mufl cicker ftaad or fall.*'

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 6g

faith in Ins blood ; the myftery of the grace, mercy and love of
Godmanifefted inChrift; the great myftery of godlinefs; the dif-
penfation of the Spirit for convidion, renovation, fan6tification,
confolation and edification of the church, by a fupply of fpiri-
ritual gifts, and other doctrines of a like tendency, were, upon
all occafions, boldly expofed, and difc) edited in prefs and pulpit.
The minifters who dared to avow them, from a convi6tion of
the truth, the fenfe of the obligation of their promifes and fub-
fcriptions to the Articles, were lure to have no preferment, nay,
to be branded with the odious names of Calvanijls, Fiiriians,
FanaticSf and I know not what.

The do6trines of /^tV/z were not regarded as belonging to
the foundation of religion. The morality of the Bible was pre-
tended the only thing that was necelfary ; and as much of the
doBrine, as all, even Socinians, Quakers, and all the reft
were agreed in, were fufficient. And if any oppofed this,
though in civil language and by fair arguments, they were fure
to be expofed as enemies to morality ; although their adverfa-
ries durft not put the conteft on this ififue with them, that he
fnould be reckoned the greatcft friend to morality who was moft
blamelefs in his walk, and (hewed it the greateft pra<?tical re-
gard. They could cxercife charity, forbearance, and love to a
Spcinian that has renounced all the fundamental truths of reli-
gion ; but none to a poor Dijfenter, who (incerely believed all
the Doctrinal Articles ; nay, even a fober Churchman, who
could notconfent to new unauthorized ceremonies, was become
intolerable. So that men, at this time, might, with much more
credit and lefs hazard, turn Socinian, or any thing, than difco-
ver the leaft regard to truths contained in the Articles, owned
by moft of the Reformed churches, and taught by our own Re-
formers. This is too vt'eli known to be denied by any one
v/ho knows how things v/ere carried on at that time and fmce *.
Further, whereas preachers formerly, in order to engage
men to a compliance with the gofpel, were wont to prefs much
upon them, their guilt, the impoiFibiiity of ftanding before God

in

* Any one that would be fatlsf.ed in the truth of this, mufl perufe
the fermons and writings publiihed by that party of old and of late, and
the hiflories of thofe times, particularly Rvjhivorth's Collet, the
fpeecbes of the long Parliament, and later writings, and they will find
documents more than enough. And they may confult alfo Honorii
Rcgii's Comment, de fiatu Eeclefio' Auglicance-

70 AN INQ^UlRY INTO THE chap. i.

in their own righteoufncfs, their impotency, their mifery by
the hilf the necelRty of regeneration, illumination, the power
of grace to make them willing to comply, and that no man
could fincerely call Ckri/l Lordf and be fubje6^ to him pratii-
cally, fave by tkz Holy Ghofl ; care was now taken to unteach
them all this, and to (hew them how very little they had lort by
the fail, if any thing was lofi: by it, either in point oi light to dif-
cern, or power and inclination to pra6life dut)?, 1 hey were
told how great length their own righteoufnejs would go, and
that it would do their burinefs ; tliey might fafely lland before
God in it ; or if there was any room for ChnJFs righteou/mfSf
it was only to piece out their own, where it was wanting. In
a word, the people were told, v/hat fine perfons many cf the
Heathens were, who knew nothing of illumination, regenera-
tion, or what the Bible was, and how little odds, if any at ail,
there was betwixt ^r^<:<2 and inorality^

And, whereas a veneration for the Lord's day was a mean
\ri keep people under fome concern about religion, and that
day was fpent by faithful minirters, in preffing upon the con-
fciences of their people, thofe new-contemned gofpel truths,
to the fpoiling of the whole plot ; care was taken to difcredit
and bring it into contempt. Minifters, inftead of telling them
on that 6.2iy ^ that they were too much inclined to fin, levity,
folly, and vanity, were commanded to deal with them as per-
fons too much inclined to be ferious ; and inflead of preaching
the gofpel, they were required, under the higheil pains, to en-
tertain them with a profane Book of Sports* And for difobe-
dience many were ejefled. And that they might be taught by
example as well as precept, a Sunday's Evening Majk was pub-
licly acted, where were prefent perfons o\ no mean note *.

Moreover, a ftate game being now to be played, the pulpit,
prefs, religion and all v/ere made fafely to truckle to Jtate. de-
JignSi and to the enllaving of the nations, by advancing the
dotlrincs of pq[five obedience t no?i'refJtance,?iud jure-divino-Jliip
of kings t; whereby men of religion were wounded to fee the
ordinances of Chrifl proHituted to fuch proje6^s, as were entirely
foreign, to fay no worfe, to the defign of their inftitution :
And men of no religion, or who were not fixed about it, were,
drawn over to think it a mere cheat, and that the defign of it

was

* Rufnworth's Colic;^. Part 2, Vol. i, pa*:!:. 459*
+ Eiihcp of Saruraonthe Articles, Art. 7^ pag. 152.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 71

was only to carry an fecular intercft under fpecious preten-
ces.

At length by thofe means, and fome other things, which are
not of our prefent confider^tion, concurring, coufufions ripened
into a civil war, whereby every one was left to fpeak, write,
aud live as he pleafed.

Many who intended no hurt, while they upon honeft defigns
inquired into, and laid open the faults of the topping clergy,
did unawares furnifli Icofe and atheiftical men with pretences
againft the minidry. And what in truth gave only ground for
a diilike of the perfons faulty, v/as received by many as a juil
ground of prejudice againft the very paftoral, as priefi-craft,
and all who are clothed with it, as a (qX of felf-deligningmen.

The body of the people, who had been debauched by the
example oi difcandalous clergy , and hardened in fin by the in-
termiihon of all difctplinCt (which of late had only been exercifed
againft the fober and pious who could not go into the mea-
sures that were then taken), the negle6l of painful preaching,
the Book of Sports and Pajlimes, and who had their heads
filled with airy and felf-elating notions of man's abiliiy to
goodi Jree-willi univerjal grace, and the like, and who now,
when they much needed the infpetStion of their faithful paftors,
were deprived of it, many of them, by the iniquity of the
times, being forced to talce faniluary in foreign nations ; the
people, I fay, by thefe things turned quite giddy, and broke
into numberlefs fed^s and parties. Every one who had en-
tertained thofe giddy notions was zealous, even to madnefs,
for propagating them, and thought himfelf authorized to
plead for them, print for them, and preach them. The of-
fice of the miniftry, that had before been rendered contemp-
tible by the fuppreffion of the beft preachers, and the fcan-
dalous lives of thofe who were mainly encouraged, was
now made more fo, by the intrufion of every bold, ignorant aud
affuming enthufiaft. The land was filled with books of ccn-
trovery, I'^uffed with unfound, offenfive and fcandalous tenets,
which were fo multiplied, as they never have been in any na-
tion of the world, in fo fmall a compafs of time. The ge-
nerality of the people being, by the neglc61 of a fcandalous
miniftry, and the difccuragcment of thofe who were laborious,
drenched in ignorance, were eafily fnaken by thofe controverfial
writings that were difleminated every wheie, and became an
eafy prey to every bold fe^^tarian.

Many

72 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, f^

Many of the better fort fet themfelves tooppofe thefc extremes,
and from a deteftaton of them were carried, fome into one evil,
fome into another ; whereby the common enemy reaped adver-
ts ge, and truth fufFered even by its defenders. Minillers who
defired to be faithful, by the abounding of thofe errors, were
forced to op pofe them in public; whereby preaciiing became
lefs edifying, and dlfputes increafed, to the great detriment of
religion.

The nation was thus crumbled into parties, in matters both
civil and religious, the times turned cloudy and dark. Pre-
tences of religion were dreadfully abufed on all hands to fub-
ferve other defigns. And even the befl: both of miniflers and
people wanted not their own fad failings, which evil men made
the word ufe of. The word and providzyict were ufed in fa-
vour of fo many crofs opinions and practices, that not a few-
began to run into that fame extreme, which fome in France and
Italy had before gone into. And about this time It was that,
the learned Herbert began to write in favour of delfm : Of
which we (hall have occafion to fpeak afterwards.

After the Refloration, things were fo far from being mended,
that they grew worfe. Lewdnefs and atheifm were encouraged
at the court, which now looked like a little Sodom. The
clergy turned no lefs fcandalous,If not more fothan before. Im-
piety was, as It were, publicly and with applaufe a61ed and
taught on the fiage, and all ferlous religion was there expofed
and ridiculed. Yea, the pulpits of many became theatre'?,
whereupon men affumed the boldnefs to ridicule ferious godli-
nefs, and the graveft matters of religion ; fuch as communioa
with God, confeflion of fin, prayer by the Spirit, and the
whole work of convertion. Controvcrfial writings were multi-
plied, and In them grave and ferious truths were handled in a
jocular way. The fcriptures were buriefqued ; and the moft
important truths, (under pretence of expofmg the DiflTcnters, to
the great grief of all good men among them, and In the Church
of England), were treated with contempt and fcorn. The pul-
pits were again proOItuted to flate dcffgns and doBrines ; and
the great truths of the gofpel, in reference to ?nan's ??n/eryt and
his recovery by Jefus Chrijl, were entirely negle6\ed by many;
and difcourfesof morality came in their place, I mean a mora-
lity that has no refpe6l to Chrift as its end, author^ and the ground
of its acceptance with God, which is plain heathenifm* The
loberer, and the better part were traduced as enthufiaftical»

diiloval

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 73

difloyal hypocrites, and I know not whan And fometimes
they on the other hand, in their own defence, were conrtrained
to lay open the impiety, alheilm, and biafphemous boldnefs of
their traducers in their way of management of divine things.
And while matters were thus carry ed betwixt them, carelefs and
indifferent men, efpecially of the better and moft confiderable
quality, being debauched in their pra6Iice, by the licentioufnefs
of the court, the immorality and loofenefs of the ftage, were
willing to conform their principles to their pra6\ice; for which
this ftate of things gave them a favourable occafion and plaufi-
ble pretences. Men whofe walk and way looked like anything
of a real regard to religion, they heard fo often traduced as hy-
pocrites, fanatics, and I know not what, that they were eafily
induced to believe them to be fuch. They who taught them
fOf on the other hand, by the liberty they alTumed in pra6iice,
convinced tliefe gentlemen, that whatever their profeflion was,
yet they believed nothing about religion themfelves ; and there-
fore it was eafy to infer tliat all was but a cheat. Befides, the
Popifh party, who were fufficientiy encouraged, while the fo-
ber DilTenters of the Proteftant perfuafion were cruelly perfecu-
ted, made it their bufinefs to promote this unfettlednefs in
matters of religion. They found themfelves unable to fland
(heir ground in way of fair debate, and therefore they craftily
fet themfelves rather to (hake otliers in their faith, than dire6^-
ly to prefs them to a compliance with their ov/n fentiments.
And it is well known they wrote many books full of fophiflry,
plainly levelling at this, to bring men to believe nothing; as
well knowing, that if they were once brought there, they
would foon be brought to believe any thing in matters of reli-
gion.

On thefe and the like occafions and pretences, arofe this de**
fe6\ion from the gofpel, which has been nourilhed by many of
the fame things which firii gave it birth, till it is grown io
fuch ftrength, as fills all well-wifters to the interell of religion
with juft fears as to the iflue.

Nor was it any wonder that thefe pretences fliould take, (efpe-
cially with pcrfons of liberal education and parts, who only were
capable of obferving thofe faults which gave occafion for them),
fmce the generality were prepared for, and inclined to fuch a
defe&ton, by a long continance under the external difpenfation
of the gofpel, without any experience of its power, the prevalent
love of iuft, that makes men impatient of any thing that may

1 have

74 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. i.

have the leaft tendency to reftrain them from purfuing the gra-
tification thereof; to which we may add the natural enmity of
the mind of man againrt the myrtery of the gofpel.

There was another thing which at this time had no fmall
influence, — -the philofophical writings of Mr. Hobbs, Spinoza,
and fome others of the fame kidney, got, one way or other? a
great vogue amongft our young gentry and ftudents, whereby
many were poifoned with principles deftru6iive of all true re*
ligion and morality.

By thofe and the like means, things are now come to that
pafs, that not a few have been bold to avow their apoflacy from
the Chriftian religion, not only in converfation, but in print.
They difown the name of Chrift, call themfelves deijlsj and
glory in that name. They have publilhed many writings re-
fle6ling on the fcriptures, and juftifying themfelves in rejeding
them.

And we have juft reafon to fufpe<?t, that, befides thofe who
do avow their principles, who are perhaps as numerous in thefe
lands as any where elfe, there are many, who yet are alhamed
to fpeak it out, who bear them good-will, and who want onlv a
little time more to harden themfelves againft the odium that this
way goes under, and a fair occafion of throwing off the mafk,
which they yet think meet to retain. Of this we have many in-
dicat:ons.

Many have alTumed an unaccountable boldnefs in treating things
facred and ferious too freely in writing and converfation. They
make bold to jeft upon the fcriptures, and upon every cccafjon
to traverfe them. When once men have gone this length, the
veneration due to that biejied book is gone, and they are in a
fair way to reje6\ it.

Others have made great advances to this defe6\ion, by difle-
minatingj and entertaining reproaches againO a Oanding minif-
try. It is known what contempt has been cafi: upon this order
of men, whom God hath ci-trufted with the gofpel difpenfaticn,
and who, by office, are obliged to maintain its honour. If this
order of men fall under that general contempt, which feme do
their utmoll to bring them to, relijzion cannot long maintain irs
ftation among us. When the principal means of the Lord's ap-
pointment are laid afide, or rendered ufelefs, no other means
will avail.

And hereon, further, there follows a negle6l of attendance
on the miniftry of the word, which the Lord has appointed for

the

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 75

the edification of the church, and eftablifhing people in the
faith of the truth he has revealed to us therein. When this once
begins to be negleded, men will foon turn fceptical and un-
concerned about religion.

And further, it is very obfervable, that many are ftrengthen-
ed in this negle6l, by principles calculated for this purpofe ;
while the whole efficacy of preaching is made to depend, not
on the blejftng of Chrift, whofe inftitution it is, or the influ-
ences of his Spirit, which he has promifed for fetting it home
on the hearers for their convi6tion, converfion, and edification,
— but on the abilities 2ind. addrefs of the preachers. It is natural
lo conclude, that it is better to ftay at home and read fome
book, than to go to fermon, if the preacher is not of very un-
common abilities : Which is a principle avowed by many, and
their practice fuits their principles.

Befides, which is the true fpring of the former, I am afraid
ignorance of the nature of revealed religion^ the defign of its
inditutions, and all its principal concerns, is become more
common than is ufually obferved, even amongft men of liberal
education and the befl: quality. And hence many of them en-
tertain notions inconfiftent with their own religion, at firfl out
pf ignorance, and afterwards think themfelves in honour en-
gaged to defend them, although deftru6live to the religion they
profefs.

Add to all this, that profanity in practice has, like a deluge,
overfpread thefe lands. And where this once takes place, love
to fin never fails to engage men to thofe principles, which
may countenance them in the courfes they love, and defign to
cleave to.

This feems plainly to be the flate of matters with us at pre-
fent. And we fee but little appearance of any redrefs. The
infe£lion fpreads, and many are daily carried otf by it, both in
England and Scotland. Though it mufl be owned that Scot^
land, as yet, is lefs tainted with that poifon : But thofe of this
nation have no reafon to be fecure, fince many are infe61:ed,and
more are in a forwardnefs to it than is comm.only thought.

Having given this fliort, but I conceive, true account of the
rife and growth of deifm^ it now remains that we confidcr, what
thefe principles are which they maintain. The deifis, although
they are not perfe61ly o?2^ amongft themfelves, yet do agree in
two things: i. They all Tt]t€i revealed religion, and plainly
maintain that all proitences to revelation are vain, cheat and im-

pofturec

75' AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ghap. ii.

fo(\upc\ 2. They all inainfalri that iiatural religion is fuflucient
10 aniVv-er all the great ends of religion, and the cnly rule
whereby all our religious pia^^ices are to be fquared. The
fii'Jl of thefe alTertions only tells v/hat their religion is not^
and exprefies their op43olition to all revelation, particularly to
Chriftianity ; which has been v/oitbily defended and aderted
againil all their objeclions by many of late, and I {hall not
much infill: in adding to uhat they hav^ written to fuch ex-
cellent purpofc. 'T\\Q Jkond feUs us what their religion is ;
:^nd il is this we chicily delign in the following papers to debate
uiiii them. They have long been upon the ojjenfive part,
v/hich is more eafy ; v^e defign now to put them upon the dc
Jtnlivc,

They whp call thernfelves dei/ls, although they thus far agree,
5^et are not all of one Ibrt. I find them, by one of their own
liijiuber, claPted into two forts, ??iQrta I and immortal*.

I'iie iramortal are they who maintain z jiiture Jlate> The
viortal, they wlio deny o fie. It is with the firft we are prin-
cipally concerned ,* yet I ihall in the fubfequent chapter offer a
few things with refpecf to the mortal dajls* And in what I
have to iay of them I fliall be very ihort ; becaufe 1 conceive,
what has already been offered in the introduction, againR this
joi't of men, miglit almoll fuperfcuc any fuither difcourfe about
ihcm.

C H A P. IL

Mortal Ddfis whOi and what Jud^iment to he made oj than
and their Smtimcnts*

TflE mortal delfts f who alfo are called nominal deijist dc"
nyingvi future flail' y are, in etFe6^, 7nere athcijls. This per-
haps fome may think a harfli judgment ; but yet it is fuch as
the deids themfelves, who are on the other fide, will allow.

One who ov/ns hiir.felf a deiil, thus exprefies his mind, —
** We do believe, that there is an inhnitcly powerful, wile and
** good Godj who fuperintends the adions of mankind, in or-
** der to retribute to every one according to their defeits : Nei-
** ther are we to boggle at this creed ; for if we do not ftick

'' Xo

* Oracles of Reafon, pag. qn.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 77

" to it, we ruin the found-ation of all human happinefs, and are
''' it] elFefl no better than mere atheifts *."

A further account of this fort of men we have given us by
one, whom any may judge capable enough for it, v.'ho confi-
ders his way of writing, and the account he gives of himfelf.
** 1 have obferved fome," fays he, ** who pretend ihemfeives
** deifts, that they are men of loofe and fenfual lives ; and I
*' make no wonder that they diilike the Chriftian doctrine of
** felf-denial, and the fevere threatenings againft wilful finners.
** You may be fure they will not allege this reafon : But hav-
" ing read Spinoza and Hobbs, and being taught to laugh at
** the (lory of Balaam's afs, and Sampfon's locks, they pro-
** ceed to ridicule the reality of all miracles and revelation.
** I have converfed with feveral of this temper, but could ne-
** vcr get any of them ferious enough to debate the reality of
** reiigion,— but a witty jell, and t'other ginfs, puts an end to
'* all further confideration f." Thefe are mere fceptics and
pravSiical atheifls, rather than real deifts.

Now, it is to no purpofe to debate with men of this temper,
if they will liften to arguments, many have faid enough, if
not to convince them, (for I know it is not an eafy matter to
convince fome men), yet to flop their mouths ; ard therefore I
Ihail not oHer any arguments, — only 1 fliall lay down a few
clear principles, and from them draw an injerence or two, which
will make it evident, what judgment we are to make of this
fort of men.

The principtes I take for incontrovertible are thefe which
follow : I. He deferves not the name of a man who a£ls no*
rationally ; knowing what he does, and to what end. 2. No
action which contributes not, at leaft in appearance, to inans
happin*fs is worthy of him. 3. The happinefs of a prefent
life, which is all that thefe gentleman allow, confifls in the
enjoyment of things agreeable to our nature, and freedom from
thofe that are noifome to it. 4. Man's nature is fuch, that /ni
felicity depends not only on thefe things, which at prefent he
has^ or wants; but likcwifeon what is pail, and what is fu-
ture. A prol'peft of the one, and a reflexion on the other, ac-
cording as they are more or lefts agreeable, exceedingly in-
creafes his pleafure or pain. 5. The hopes of obtaining here-
after

* Letter to the Deids, pag. 125.
t Growth of Deifm, pag. ^,

7§ AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. lU

after the goo J we at prefent want, and of being freed from evils
we fuitbr bv, mightily enhances the pleafure of what we pof-
icfs, and allays the trouble that arifes from incumbent evils.
6. So ftrong is the dcfire every one finds in himfelf of a con-
tinuation in being, as cannot choofe but render the thoughts of
annihilation very terrible and irkfome. 7. The pra6iice of
virtue^ as it is the moil probable mean of attaining y^^z^r^ hap'-
pinefsf if anv fuch ftate be, fo it is that which tends moft to
perfe*:^ and advance man's nature ; and fo muft give the moft
Iblid and durable pleafure, even here in this life. 8. It is ma-
licious to do what tends to the obftru6ling another's happimjs^
when it cannot further one s own* Few men will queftion any
of thefej and if any do, it is not worth while to debate with
him. Now from thefe we may fee,

1. It would contribute much to thofe gtn\\cm&n''s prefent felicity
to believe, (be it true or falfe) that there is 2i future ftate of hap*
pinefs, fince the hopes of immutable and endlefs blifs would be
a nocable antidote againrt the uneafinefs of mind that arifes, not
only from incumbent evils, but alfo from thofe we fear, and the
inconfiancy of our lliort-lived enjoyments.

2. The generality of maqkind, elpecally where Chrifllanity
obtains, being already poffeffed of the profpe6t oijuture happinefs^
which fupports them under prefent evils, arms them againft the
troublefome reflections on pafi troubles, and fears of the future;
and moreover animates them in the pra6tice of thefe a61ioiis
whereby not only their own good, but that of the focieties
wherein they live, is fignally promoted ; all attempts to rob
them of this hope are highly malicious, and import no lefs than
a confpiracy aganil the happlnefs of mankind, and the good of
the fociety wherein they live: And therefore we may fay ailuredr
ly, that as thofe mortal ddjls are much incommoded by their owq
opinion ; fo their attempts for its propagation, niufi be looked
on as proceeding from no good defign to the refl of mankind.

Here perhaps fome of them may fay, that this opinion tends
to liberate a great part of mankind from the difquicting fears
of future viijeiy.

To this I anfwer, i, I believe it true, that their fears ai fu-
tare mifery are uncafy to them; or they have but little hope of
future felicity* Their way of living allows them none. But
thefe fears proceed from confrience of guilt, and are the genu-
ine refult of avStions, equally deftru6\ive to the aCtors, and the
intereft of the reft of mankind. 2. Thefe fears have their u^e,

and

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. ' 7^

and ferve to deter from fuch evils as are ruining to the perfons
who commit them, and to human fcciety. 3. VVhile this opinion
liberates a few of the worfl: of men, from thefe fears, which
are a part of the juft puniftiment of their villanies, and embold-
ens them to run on in thofe evils which ruin themfelves and c^
thers, it difpirits and difcourages the only ufeful part of man^
kind, by filling them with difmal thoughts of annihilation*
4. Nor can all that the deifls are able to do, liberate them^
felves or mankind from thofe fears. The utm.oft that they can
pretend, with any (hew of reafon, is, that we have not ground
lo believe fuch a flate. Will this make us fure that there is
•none ? But of this we have faid enough in ihet intrcdu6tion.

By what has been faid it is evident, what judgment we are
«o make of this fort of deifts. Their lives, writings and death,
ihew them to be mere atheids,

VaninuSy when firft he appeared and wrote his Amphithea^
trum ProvidenticR Bivinx, fet out for fuch an one that believed a
God' But at length fpoke out plainly that ke believed none,
and was defervedly burnt for atheifm at Thouloufe, April 9,
^619. He confeifed there were twelve of them (hat parted in
in company from Naples to teach iheir doctrine in all the pro-
vinces of Europe *.

Uriel Accofla vJxo^Q. for this opinion, as himfelf tel!s us in
his Examplar Vita, Hu nance, which is fub joined to Li?nburg's
conference with Urobius the Jew f. His lad a61ion tells us
what man he was. After he had made a vain attempt to (hoot
his brother, he difcharged a piftol into his own br^aii. This
fell out about the twentieth or thirtieth year of the laft century^
So they live, and fo they die*

Were this our deflgn, or if we faw any need of it, v/e might
give fuch an account of the principles, pra6\ices, and tragical
exits of not a few of this fort of perfons, as would be fufficient
to deter the fober from following thtm. Bt>.t what has been
faid is fufficient to difcover the dcftruttive tendency of their
frinie opinion. And further we (hall not concern ourfelves
with them, but go on to that which is mainly intended in this
4ifcourfe.

CHAP,

^ Spe Great Geographical Didionarv,

i y.mburgi Pr^fatio & Refpons. Urielis Accoftje Lihro,

$Q AN INQUIRY INTO THE . chap. m.

CHAP. III.

Wherein the Controvcrfy betwixt us and the Immortal Deijh is
fiated and clemed,

THE immortal deijls, who own a future Jlate^ are the only
perfons with v^hom it is worth while to difpute this point about
xhc fujjiciency of natural religion. Before we olfer any arguments
on this head, it is neceflary we ftatc the queRion clearly ; and
it is the more neceflary, that none of the deifls have had the
courage or honefty to do it. And here in the entry \vq fliall lay
down fome things, which we think are not to he controverted
on this occafion. And we ihall, after thefe conceflions are made,
inquire what (lill remains in debate.

I. We look on it as certain, that all the world, in all ages,
hath been poflcfled of Tome notion of a God, of fome />(??6'(fr above
them, on whom, in more or lefs, they did depend; and to whom
on this account, feme rerpe£l is due. This Heathens have ob-
ferved. CicerOf amongfl others, hath long fince told us, " That
** there is no nation lb barbarous that owns not feme god, that
" has not fome anticipations or impreffions from nature, of a
'* God*." Nor is thisany more, than what we are told, Rom.
i. 19, 20, &c. that the Gentiles have fome notions of truth
concerning God, which they hold in unrighteoufnefs ; that God,
partly by erecting a tribunal in their own breaOs, which they
cannot decline, though they never fo m.uch would, and partly
by prefenting to their eyes thofe vifible works that bear a lively
imprefs of his invifihle power and Godhead, hath, as it were,
forced upon them the knowledge of fome part of that, which
the aportle calls yv^f^" -^S S^r, or that which may he known of
God, Whence they all in fome mcafure knczu God, though
they glorified him net as God.

The floties fome have told us of nations that have no notion
of a God, upon fcarch are found falfe. And for fome lewd
perfons, who have pretended to a fettled perfuafion, they are
not to be credited. We have fufFicient reafon to look on them
as liars, or at leaft, not admit them witnelfcs in this cafe.

2. I do think that the knowledge of feme of the more ob-
vious laws of nature, and their obligation, hath univerially ob-
tained,

* Cicero de Natura Deorum, Lib. i.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. Si

tained *. The Gentiles, all oF them, do by nature thofe things,
that is, the material part of thofe duties, which the law of na-
ture enjoins, zukich jhews thz zocrk of the latv, or fome part
of it at leaft, to bt zontttn in their hearts, fince ihey do
fome things it enjoins. 1 do not think that this writing &f the
law imports innate ideas, or innace aclual knowledge, wliich Mr.
Lock hath heen at fo much pains to diiprove f, with what fuc*
cefs I inquire not now. Some think, that while he grants the
ielf-evidence of a natural propenfity of our thoughts toward
fome notions, which others call innate^ he grants ail that the
more judicious intend by that expreffion. Others think that
iVIr. Lock's arguments conclude only the improbability of hi'
nate ideas, and that they are to be rejected, rather for want of
evidence for them, than for the llrength of what is faid againft
them %' But whatever there is as to this, neither the apollle's
fcope nor words oblige us to maintain them. What is intend-
ed may be reduced to two affertions, viz. That men are born
with fuch faculties, which cannot, after they are capable of ex-
ercifing them, but admit the obligation and binding force of
fome, at leafl:, of the laws of nature, when they are fairly of-
fered to their thoughts ; and, That man is fo flated, that he can-
not mifs occafions of thinking of, or coming to the know-
ledge of thofe laws of nature. ** Homines nafci cognitione
** aliqua Dei inftru61os, baud dicimus : Nullam omnino ha-
** bent, fed vi cognofcendi dicimus; neque ita naturalitcr cog-
** nofcunt atque fentiunt, inntam potentiam Deum cognoi-
** cendi, ad cultum ejus aliquo modo praslhndum, ftimulantcm,
** fponte fe in adultis rationis compotibus, non minus ccrto &
** neceflario quam ipfum ratiocinari, exerturam, unumquemque
*' retlnere, ratio nulla ef^ cur opinemur cum fcntiamus,'' fays
the learned Dr. Owen J.

3- It

* I inquire not whether tliey were acquainted with the proper and
true grounds of the obligation of thofe laws they owned obligatory.

+ Lock's Efiay on Human Underftanding, Book i. Ch. 4.' § 11.

% Becconfail of Nat. Relig. Ch. 6. § i, 2.

§ Theologumen. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Par- 2.—" We do not faj^ tliat
« men are born with any aftual knowledge of God, as they have
** no knowledge at all when they are born ; but we fay that they are
« born with a capacity of knowing him, and that they do not fonataral-
" ly know as they feel this implanted capacity of knowing God, which
« ftirs them up to worfliiohini in fome manner. And that this capa-

K

83 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. in.

3. It IS unqucHionable, and has been fufficiently attefted
by the nations, and even by fome of the worft of them, that
man has a confcitnce^ that fometlmes drags the greateft and
moft obftinate offenders to its tribunal, in their own breafts,
accufes them, condemns them, and in fome fort executes the
fentence againft them, for their counteraiSiing known duty,
how little foeverthey know. A Heathen poet could fay,
"——Prima tji hdtc ultiOf quod fe
Judice, nemo nocens ahfolvitur^ improha quamvis
Gratia fallacis pratons vicerit urnam*.

4* We own that thofe laws of nature, which arc of abfolutc
ncccility to the fupport of government and order in the worJd,
and the maintenance of human fociety, are, in a good mea-
fure, knowable by the light of nature, and have been generally
known.

5. We willingly admit that, what by tradition, and what by
the improvement of nature's light, many of the wifer Heathens
have come to know, and exprefs many things excellently, as
to the nature of God, man's duty, the corruption of nature, a
future ftatc, &c. and fome of them have lived nearer up to the
knowledge that they had than others : For which they are
highly to be commended, and 1 do not grudge them their praifc.

6. I look on it as certain, that the light of nature, had it
been duly improven, might have carried them in thefe things,
and others of the like nature, further than ever any went.

But after all thefe things are granted, the queilion concern-
ing \\\t Jufficitncy of natural religion^ remains untouched.

For clearing this, it is further to be obferved, that, when
wc fpcak of the fufficiency of natural religion, or thofe noti-
ces of God, and the way of worfhipping him, which arc at-
tainable by the mere light of nature, without revelation, we
confider it as a mtan in order to fome tnd* For hy Jufficitncy
is meant, that aptitude of a mean for compaiTing fome cnd^
that infers a neceffary conne6\ion betwixt the dut uje^ that is,

fuch

" city will no lefs naturally and fpontaneoufly exert itfelf in all adults
*« that are poffeffed of reafon, than that of reafoning itfelf, there is
« no reafon why we Ihould deliver as an opinion, as we feel it to be
« the cafe."

* «* This is the firft part of the punifhment, that every guilty per-
« fon is eendemned by himfelf, although wicked interell £ould hare
« overcome the integrity of his judge."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 83

fuch an ufe of the mean, as the perfon to whom it is faid to be
Jufficitnt, is capable to make of it, and the attainment of the
end.

Now natural religion, under this confideration, may be af-
ferted fufficient or not, according as it is looked at with rcfpedl
to one end, or another : For it is ufeful to feveral purpofes,
and has a refpe6^ to feveral ends.

I. It may be confidered with refpe(51: to human fociety, up-
on which religion has a considerable influence. " There could
** never poiTibly be any government fettled amongft athcifts,
** or thofe who pay no refpe6l to a Deity. Remove God once
** out of heaven, and there will never be any god's upon earth,
** If man's nature had not fomething of fubjc<S^ion in it to 4
** Supreme Being above him, and inherent principles obliging
** him how to behave himfelf toward God, and toward the reft
** of the world, government could have never been introduced,
** nor thought of. Nor can there bp the Icaft mutual fecurity
** betA^een governors and governed, where no God is admitted.
** For it is an acknowledging of God, in his fupreme judg*
** ment over the world, that is the ground of an oath ; and up-
•* on which the validity of ^U human engagements do depend,'*
fays an excellent perfon *. And the famed Cicero expreffe*
himfelf very fully to the fame purpofe. Speaking of religion
and piety, he {zySj—Ouibusfublatis, perturbatio vita fequitur ,
& magna conjufio, atque hand fciof an pietate advcrfus Deojf
fublata, Jides etiam, & Jo cut as humani generis, ^ una excels
UntiJJima virtus, juftitia toliatur\. If the queftion concerned
this end, we might own natural religion feme way fufficient
to be a foundation for human fociety, and fome order and go-
vernment in the world : For it is in fa6t evident, that where re-
velation has been wanting, there have been feveral well formed
governments. Though ftiH it muft be faid, that they were
obiged to tradition for many things that were of ufe, and to have
recourfe io pretended revelation, where the real was wanting J.

Which

* See Ch. Wolfeley*s Unrcaf. of Athcifm, p?g. i J2, See,
t De Natura Dcorum, Lib. i, m^hi. pag. 5. " — Which being
*' taken away, 'a great diforder and confufion in life rauft follow ; and
«< I know not whether, after piety to the Gods is taken away, truth and
*[ the focial affedions, and juftice, the moft excellent of the virtues,
" would not at the fame time be taken away,"
% See Amy raid on Reli*;. Part a. Cap. 8.

;?4 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap, in.

Which -fi-icws revelation necefll^ry, if not to the beings yet
to the uetl-being of iocicty.

2. Natural religion may be confidered in its fubferviency
to God's moral government of the world ; and with refpe^i to
tliis, it has feveral confiderable ufes, that I cannot enter uoort
the detail of. It is the meafure of God's judicial proceedings;
v.'ith rcipeCl to thofe of mankind who want revelation ; and
as to \\\\%, there i-s one thing that is ufually obferved, that it is
fufjicient to jujlijx God in puivMiing [inners* That God fome-
times, even here in time, punilbes offenders, and, by the fore-
bcdir^'s of their ccnfciences, gives them dreadful prefages of
a progrefg in his feverity againil them, after this life, cannot
ivcli be denied. Now certainly there muft be fome meafure^
uhereby God proceeds in fin's matter. Where there is no lazv,
there is nx)-trL.'»JgrefJion. Puniihments cannot be inflicted, but
f:r the tfanJgfciTion, and according to the tenor of a/^rz). And
this lav/, if it is holy, juj}.y 'dnd good in its pi'eceptSy and equal
in its Jandiod, is not only the incafure whereby the governor
proceeds in punifhing offenders ; but that which juflilies him
in tlie punishment of them. It is needlefr, to fpeak of the
grant of reruards in this caie ; becaufe with refpe6\ to them,
noe only jujlice, but ^s^rai.e and bounty have place, which are
i!Ot r^ilnctcd to any iuch nice ir.enfures in the dilpenfation of
favrur?;. as jiijiice is in the execution of })uni{hmerits. Now if
iiatur-al rciigion is ccnfidered wiih rei'peiH to this end, we iay
Ix is fvjfimerit to jutlify God, and fuliy clear him from any
imputatic n of injultice or cruelty, whatever puni/b.ments he
rryav, eitiier.in (ime or after time, infiiit upon mankind who
want revelation- There ar^ none of them come to age, who—
!• Have not fallen fhort of knowing many duties, which they
might have known. 2. V\'ho liave not emitted many duties,
which they knew themfelves obliged to. And 3.^ Who have
v.oi done what they kne.w they ought net to have done, and
rriaht have forborn. If thefe three are made out, as no doubt
thev m^y be againfl all m''n, I do not fee what lealon any
will have to implead God either of hard(l)ip or injuftice.

fliere are 4 know, who: think it very hard, that thcfe na-
tural notices of God and reiigiun ibould he lufjicwnt to juftify
God in adjudging tbofc, wlio couniera61 then), to future ami
eter r.al punifriTnents , while ye.t fuch an attendance to, and com-
pliance with them as m.en aie capable cf, in their prefent cir-
cuiTiliances, is not fufficient to entitle us Xq etcjiial rcizcirds*

But

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 85

But if, in this matter, any injuftice is charged upon God, who
fliall manage the plea? Shall they who tranfgrersand contraveen
Thole notices do it? But what injuftice meet they with, if they
are condemned for not knowing what they might have known?
n*t doing what they were obliged to do, and were able to do?
nnd for doing what they might and Ihould have forborn? If all
thefe may be laid to their charge, though there were no nfore,what
have they to fay for themfelves, or againft God ? They furely
have no reafon to complain. If any have reafon to complain, it
miift be they who have walked up to the natural notices of God.
But where is there any fuch? We mav fparc our vindication till
fiich an one be found. Nor is it eafy to prove that man's obedience
though perfedl, muft necelfarily entitle to eternal felicity. And
he who (hail undertake to implead God cf injullice upon the
account of fuch a fentence, as that we nor/ fpeak of, will not
find it eafy to make good his charge.

Were the difficulty thus moulded, That it Is hard to pretend
that thcfe natural notices of God are fufficient to juftify God in
condemning the tranfgrelTors of them to future puniHiments,
while punctual complance with them is not fufficient to fave
thofe, who yield this obedience, from thofe punifnments, which
the contraveeners are liable to for their tranfgreffion, — though
it were thus moulded, it would be a hard talk to make good
fuch a charge. But I am not concerned in it; nor are any, who
judge the perfons, who have gone fartheft in this compliance,
liable upon other accounts ; becaufe rhey flill own their com-
pliance lo far available to them, as to fave them from thofe de-
gress of wrath, which deeper guilt would have inferred.

3. Other ends there are, with refpeft to which natural religion
mav be confidered, which I fhall pafs without naming, and fnall
otily make mention of that which we are concerned in, and Is
aimed at in the prefent controverfy, and that is, thejuiure happi-
r.efs of man in the eiijoyment of God, This certainly is xViefupra/i:
and ultimate end of religion with refpecl to vian himfclf. For
that the Glory of God is the chief end abfolutely, and muft, in
all refpcc>, have the preference, I place beyond debate.

Nov/ it is as to this end, that the queflion about the fuf-
ficiency cf natural religion is principally m.dved. And the
que^ion, in fhort, amounts to this, Whether the notices of God
and religion, which all men by the light cf nature have, or at
leaft by the mere improvement of their natural abilities without
revelation, may have, are fufficient to dlre6\ them in the way io

eternal

85 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE «map. ni.

eternal blcffsdnefs, fatisfv them that fuch a Oate is attainable,
and point out the way how it is to be attained ; and whether by
that practical compliance with thofe notices, which man in his
prefent ftate is capable of, he may certainly attain to acceptance
with God, pleafe him, and obtain this eternal happinefs in the
enjoyment of him? The deifts are for the affirmative, as we
fhall afterwards make appear, when we confider their opinions
more p:irticular!y.

But before v/e proceed to offer arguments, it will be needful t»
branch this queftion into feveral particulars that are included
m it, that we may the better conceive of, ^nd take up the
import of it, and how much is included and wrapt up in this
afTertion, The quertion which we have propofed in general,
may be turned into thefe five fubordinate queries :

1. Whether, by the mere light of nature, we can difcover
an eternal flate of happinefs, and know that this is attainable ?
Unlefs this is done, nothing in matters of religion is done. It
is impoffible that nature's light can give any dire6tions as to
the means of attaining future happinefs, if it cannot fatisfy us
ehat there is fuch a ftate.

2. Whether men, left to the condu6^ of the mere light of
nature, can certainly difcover and find out the way of attain-
ing it ? that is. Whether, by the light of nature, we can know
and find out all that is required of us, in the way of duty, iri
order to our eternal felicity ? If the affirmative ischofen, it mufl
be made appear by nature's light, what duties arc abfolutely
neceilary to this purpofe; that thofe which arc prefcribcd are
indeed duties; and that they are all that arc neccfTary in order
to the attainment of the end, if they are complied withal. Al-
though we fhould have it never fo clearly made out, that there
is a future ftate of happinefs, yet if we are left at an utter lofs
3s to the means of attaining it, we are no better for the difco-
very.

3. Whether nature's light gives fuch a full and certain dif-
covery of both thcfe as the cafe feems to require ? Confidering
what a cafe man at prefent is in, to hope for an eternity of hap-
^oinefs, is to look very high : And any man, who in his prefent
circumftances, Oiall entertain fuch an expe<Sfation, on mere
furmifes, fufpicions and may- he's, may be reproached by the
world, and his o vn heart, as a fool. To keep a man up in
the fteady impredion, and expe6tation of fo great things, con-
jectures, fuppofitions, probabilities, and confufcd general hints,

'arc'

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 87

are not fufficicnt. Again, there are huge difficulties to be fur-
tiaounted in the way to thib bleffednefs, which are obvious and
certain. Senfiblc lodes are fometimes to be Tuftained, fenfible
pains to be undergone, and fenfible dangers to be looked in the
face. Now the queliion is, Whether is there fuch a clear and
certain knowledge of thefe attainable, as the importance of the
cafe, the ftrefs that is to be laid on them, and the dangers that
are to be encountered for them, requires ? Certain it is, it
will not be fuch notices as moft pleafe themfelves with, tha^
will be able to anfwer this end.

4. Whether the evidence of the attainablenefs of a future
ftate of happinefs, and of the way to it, is fuch as fuits the capa-
cities of all concerned ? Every man has a concernment in this
matter. The deirts inquire after a religion that is able
to fave all, whereof every man, if he but pleafe, may have
the eternal advantage. Novi^ then the queflion is. Whe-
ther the cafe is fo dated, as that every man, who is in earncf^,
if he has but the ufeof reafon, however (hallov/ his capacity is,
how great foever his inevitable entanglements and hinderanccs
frxym clofe application are, may attain to this certainty about
this end, and ihc way to ii? For it muft be allowed that there is
a vart difference among men as to capacity. Men are no more
of one meafure in point of intellectual abilities, than in ftature.
That may be out of the reach of one, which another may eafily
attain to. Now, may as much be certainly known by the
meaneft capacity as is neceffaiy for him to know ? Again, all
men have not alike ieifure. That may be impoffible to roe, if
I am a poor man, obliged to work hard to earn my own and
family's bread, which would not be fo if 1 had Ieifure and op«
portunity to follow my ftudies. Now, if thefe difcoveries,
both as to their truth, certainty and fuitablenefs, are not fuch
as the meaneft, notwithfianding any Inevitable hinderances
he may be under, may reach, they will not anfwer the end.

5. Whether, fuppofing all the former, every man, however
furroundcd with temptations, and inveigled with corrupt in-
clinations, or other hinderances, which he cannot evite, is yet
able, without any fupply of fupernatural firength, to comply
fo far with all thofe duties, as is abfolutely needful in order to
obtain this eternal happinefs? Whatever our knowledge is,
we are not the better for it, unlefs we are able to yield a prac-
tical compliance.

The deifts have the affirmative of all thefe queflions to make

good#

8S AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, iv,

good. How thcv acquit themfelves in this, we fliall fee after-
wards. The fafk, as any one may fee, is fufficiently difficult.
And I do not know, that any one of them who has yet wrote,
hath given any evidence that they undeiOood the ftate of the
queftion in its full extent. They huddle it up in the dark,
that the weaknefs of their proof may not appear. And per-
liaps they are not willing to apply their thoughts fo clofely to
the fubje6l, as is requifite, in order to take up the true ftate of
the controverfy.

The more remifs and carelefs they have been this way, we
had fo much the more to do to Aate the queftion truly betwixt
us and them. And having done this, v/e fhall next proceed to
make good our part of it.

A negative is not eafily proven, which puts us at fome lofs.
It has been denied that it can in fome cafes be proven. But
we hope, in this cafe, we are able to offer fuch reafons as will
juftify us in holding the negative in this debate. And wc {l»all
fee next whether they are able to demonfirate the affirmative^
and offer as good reafons for it, as we fhall give againrt it.
And it is but reafonable they ihould offer better, in a matter
of fo great concern.

C H A P. IV.

Proving the Infufficiency of Natural Religion^ from the Infuf-
ficiency of its Difcoveries of a Deity.

THOUGH it belongs to the afiferters of \\\q Efficiency of
natural religion, to juflify by argument their affertion, and we
v/ho are upon the negative, might fuperfede any further debate
until fuch time, as we fee how they can acquit themfelves here ;
yet truth, not triumph, being the defign of our engaging in
the contefl, that none may think we are without reafon in our
denial, and that wc put them upon the proof, only to difficult
them, we fhall now by fome arguments endeavour to evince the
infufficiency of natural religion.

The firli argument 1 (liall improve to this purpofe is deduced
from the infufficiency of thofe difcoveries, which the light of na-
ture is able to make of God. Nothing is more plain than this,
that religion is founded upon the knowledge of the Deity ; and
that our regard for him will be anfwerable to the knowledge

we

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 89

wc have of him. That religion therefore which is defe6live
here is lame with a witnefs : And if nature's light cannot af*
ford fuch notices of the Deity, as are fufficient or neceffary to
beget and maintain religion amongft men, then it can never
with any rational man be allowed fufficient to dire6\ men in
religion.

Now, for clearing this argument, feveral things are to be dif-
courfed. And firft of all, it is requifite, that we ftate fuch a
notion of religion in general, as may be allowed to pafs with
all, who are, or can reafonably be fuppofed competent judges
in fuch matters. Religion then, in general, may be juftly
faid to import that veneration, rej'peci or regard ^ which is due
from the rational creature, in his whole coiirfe or life, to the
fupreme fuper eminently excellent Beings his Creator, Preferverj
Lord or Governor and Benefador*

The aBions of the rational creature, which may come under
the notion of religion, are of two ibrts ; Some of them do di-
rectly, prop'erly and immediately import a regard or refpe<5^ to
God as their end ; which they are immediately and properly
defigned to exprefs. Such a61:sare called aBs of worfiip. And
religion is more eminently thought to confift in thefe, and that
not without reafon. Yea, by fome it is wholly, and againft
all reafon, confined to them, and circumfcribed within thofe
bounds. Again, there are other a6\ions, which, though they
have other more proper, dire6l and immediate ends, on account
whereof they undergo various denominations, yet they alfo
are, or may be, and certainly (hould be fubordinate to that,
which, though it is not the proper, moft immediate, and dif-
tinguilhing end of thefe actions, yet is the common and ulti-
mate end, at which all a man's anions Ihould be levelled.
Now all the a6lions of a rational creature, which are of this
laft fort, as referred to a Deity, and importing fomewhat of re-
ligion, may be termed a6^s of 7noral obedience. In fo far they
are religious, and come within the compafs of our confideration,
as they exprefs any refpe£l to God. And they exprefs and
import regard to God, in as far as they quadrate with the mo-
ral law, which is the inflrument of God's moral government of
the v/orld ; and therefore if they are right and agreeable to this
rule, they may be termed ads of moj;al obedience, to diftin-
guiCn them from thefe ads, which are folely and more flri6\ly
religious, and are called a6ts of worlhip.

But

L

90 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. iv.

But to rpeak fomewhat more particularly cf this regard that
IS due to God, it is as evident as any thing can, that it mufl
be,

1. In \\s Jor?nal nature different from that refpetS^, uhich
we may allov/abiy pay to any creature ,* that is, it mufi be
given on accounts no way common to him with any of the
creatures, but on account of thofe diftinguilhing excellencies,
which are his incommunicable glory. None can reafonably
deny this, fince it muft be allowed by all, that religious refpeB
due to God, and civil rejpetl due to creatures are difierent,
and muft be principally differenced by the grounds whereon
the refpe6t to che one or other is paid. Now the grounds
whereon this homage is due unto the Deity, arc, the fuperemi-
nent, nay, infmite excellency of his nature and perfe61ions,
and his indiiputably fupreme, abfoiute and independent fo-
vereignty over all his creatures, v^hich flands eternally firm
and undiaken, as being fupported by that Jupereniinency of his
excellency^ his creation, prtjtrvation, and benefits' Now none
of thefe grounds are, in any degree, comm.unicabls to the
creatures ; and fo to talk of a religious worfhip due to the crea-
Jure, is to fpeak nonfenfe uith a witnefs.

2. This veneration we give to God muR be i-.tenfively, or
as to degree, not only fuperior to that which we give to any
creature, but even Jupreme. It is not enough, that we love
God on accounts peculiar to him ; but we muft love him with
a love fuperior to that which we give any creature, and au"

Jwerahle to thofe accounts, whereon we do love him. And
the like may be faid as to other inOances. There is no need
of infixing in the proof of this. Would our king be pleafed,
if we paid him no more refpe61 than we do his fervant ? Is
the diftance betwixt God and tlie highcil creature lefs confider-
^ble, than that which is betwixt a king and his meanefl fub-
je<5l ? Nay, is it not infinitely more? How ran it then rea-
fonably be expecSied that the fame degree of refpe6l we pay
to the creatures, will find acceptance, or anfwer the duty we
owe to the glorious and evcr-blefi'cd Lord God?

3. This veneration muft be extenfively fuperior to that paid
to any of the creatures. Our regard to the Deity mufl not be
confmed to one fort of our a6\ions, (thofe, for inHance, which
are religious in a JlriB Jenfe, or more plainly, ads ofwovjliip) ;
but it muft run through every a6^.ion of our life, inWard and
outvv'ard. Every a61ion is a dependent of God's, and owes him

homage.

PRINCIPLES OF THE PvlODERM DEISTS. 91

homage. It 13 otherwife wltli men ; for to one fort of men, we
may owe refpe6i, in one fort of our avftions, and owe them none
in another, A child, in filial duties, owes his hiher rc^JpeSl ;
.as a fubjecl, he owes his governor reverence ; and fo of other
inftances of a like nature: But to no one creature is he, in all
re/'pecls, fubjeci, or obliged by every a6tion to exprefs any re-
gard. And the reafon is plain ; he is fubje6^ to none of them
in all refpe^fts wherein he is capable of a6iing. But, with re-
ipecl to God, the matter is quite otherwife: Whatever he has
is from God, and to him he is in all refpeHs fubjec^, on him he
every way depends. The power your father has over you, he
derives from God, and it is God that binds the duties you are
to pay your father on you ; and therefore God is to be owned
as fupremz, even in every a6l of duty that you perform to your
father, your king, your neighbour, or yourfelf : for you
are in all refpects his. While you are fubordinate on various
accounts to others, yet flill God is in every regard fupreme
and fovireign Lord and difpoftr of you and your a«5\ions, and
therefore you owe him a regard, in every thing you think,
fpeak or do. I tliink this plain enough.

I hope this account of the nature of religion in general, will
not be found liable to any confiderable exceptions^ it being no
other than fuch as the firll view of the nature of the thing offers
to any that fcrioally confiders it. And from this account it is
evident, that religion is founded on the knowledge of a Deity, A
Hind devotion that is begot and maintained, either by profound
ignorance of God, or confufed notions of him, anfwers neither
man's nature, which is rational, and requires that he proceed
in all his avSiions, efpeciaiiy thofe of moR moment, rationally,
that is, with knowledge and vvillingnefs ; nor will it obtain ac-
ceptance, as that which anfwers his duty, wherebyhe is obliged
to ferve God with the be[I and in the higheft wav that his faculties
admit him. The contrary fuppoution of Papifts is a fcandalous
reproach to the nature^ both of God and man ; and an engine
fuited only unto the felnili defign of the villainous priefts, who,
that they may have the conduct of men's fouls, and fo the ma-
nagement of their eftates, have endeavoured \o hood-wink man,
and make him brutiOi, where he fhould be motl rational ; and
that they may have the hefty they make him prefent God with
the blind and the laraey v/hich \i.\s foul abhors*

This being, in general, clear, that the knowledge of God is
tfiefoundaticrt of all acctptahle religion, it is now proper to in-
■ ■ ■ ■ quire

AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, iv,

ire zvhat difcoveries of God are requifite to bring man to fuch
eligion, as has been above defcribed, and to keep him up in
■ practice of it. Now if we look ferioafly into this matter, I
nkwe may lay down the following pofition, as clear beyond
ional contradiction.

[. That a particular knozoledge of God is requifite to this pur-
e, to beget and maintain this reverence for the Deity, which is.

undoubted due. It is not enough that we have fome general
;3ons, however extenfive. To conceive of God in the general,
t he is the heft and greateft of beings, optimus viaximus, is
t enough. The reafon is obvious: we muft have in every
t of actions, nay, in each particular action, that knowledge
ich may influence and guide us to that refpe6l, which is
:i to him, in that fort of adtions, or that particular one; but
s general notion having no more refpecf to one than another,
11 not do. It direiSls us no more in one than another, unlefs
; particulars that are comprehended under that general be ex-
lined to, and undt*rftood by the a61or.

2. That knowledge, which will anfwer the end, mufl he large
d comprehenfive. This religion is not to be confined to one
rtlcular fort of a6lions, but to run through all, and therefore
;re muft be a knowledge, not merely of one or two per-
tions of the divine nature, but of all : not fimply, as if God
re to be comprehended, but of all thofe perfections and pre-
2;at]ves of God, which require our regard in our particular
tions, in fo far as they are the ground of our veneration,
s for inftance, to engage me to irufl God, I muft know his
wfir, his care and knozoledge ; to engage me to pray to him,
mufl be perfuaded of his knozoledge., of his willingnejs and
wer to affift me in the fuit I put up ; to engage me to Icve
m, I mull know the amiahlenefs of his perfections; to engaae
1 to pay him obedience, I muft know his authority, the laws

has flampcd it on, and that he has fixed a law to thefe par-
:ular aClioiis, either more general or mote fpeciaL Whence
bein^'^ ^^vident, that different actions require different views

Gcd in order to their regulation ; and all a mean's aCtions
ing under rule, there mufl be a large and comprehenftvc
lowlcdge of God to guide him in his whole courfe.
3. It being no lefs than an univerfal religion that is to be
light after, the difcoverits of God wherein it muft be founded,
ufi Ijc plain to the capacities of aJl mankind ; and that both

to the truth of thefe difcoveries and their ufe. It is certain

that

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 93

that all men are no more of the fame meafure of underHanding
than they are in ftatuie. However important the difcovery is,
if it is above my reach, it is all one to me as if it vi ere not dif-
covered at all. To tell me of fuch a thing, but it is In the
clouds, is to amufe and not to inflruft me. There may in-
deed, fuppofing an nniverfal religion, be fomewhat of differ-
ence as to knowledge allowed, as to fome of the concernments
of this religion, to perfons of more capacity and induftry, and
who have more time ; but if is calculated for the good of all
mankind, the difcoveries muft be fuch, as all i\ ho are con-
cerned may reach, as to all its efTentials ; for the meaneft nave
as much concernment in them as the greatcft.

4« It is mofl: evident, that thtfc difcoveries muft be certain^
or come recommended by fuch evidence as may be convincing
and fatisfying to every mind. Conjectural difcoveries, or fur-
mifes of thefe things, built upon airy and fubtile fpeculations,
are not firm enough to eftablifh fuch a perfuaficn of truth in
the foul, as may be able to influence this univerfal regard, over
the belly of the (Irongeft inward bias and outward rubs.

5. The evidence of thefe things mujl he abiding ; fuch as may
be able to keep up the foul in a conftant adherence to duty.
It is not one day tliat man is to obey, but always ; and there-
fore thefe difcoveries muft lie fo open to the mind at all tin^ies,
as that the foul may by them be confiantly kept up in its ad-
herence to duty. If from any external or internal caufe, tliere
may arife fuch obflru6\ions as a ay for one day keep man from
thofe difcoveries, or the advantage of them ; he may ruin, nay,
mud ruin him.felf by failing in his duty ; or at leaO, if he is
not ruined, he is laid open to it.

6. Upon the whole it appears, \h2^\\o^o\ix\^ natural rehgion^ \
or to introduce and maintain among men that regard v/hich is |
due to the Deity, there is requifite fuch a large^ comprehenfivcj .
certain^ plain^ and abiding difcovery^ as may have fvfficiait y

force to influence to a compliance with his du-y in all,injianc€S. i

Thus far matters feem to be carried on with fufficient evi-
dence. We are now come to that which feems to be the prin"
cipal hinge, whereon the whole controverfy, about \\\^ juffi-
ciency of natural religion, turns; in fo far at leaO, as it is to
be determined by this argument. Now this is, Whether na-
ture's light can indeed afford fuch difcoveries of God, as are
evinced to be neceffary for the fupport of religion? If it can-
not, then it is found irfufficient ; if it can, then natural rell-

gipii

54 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. iv.

gjoii Is thus hr acqultled from the charge laid againft it. Now
to attempt the decifion of this queiiion iaccefsfully, it is necef-
fury that we ftate it right. It is not then the quefiion, vVhe-
ther 2« ?2aturc there is fujicicni obje^live light ? as the ichools
barbaroullv fpeak ; that is, Whether in the works of creation
and providence, which lie open to our view, or are the obje6l
of our contemplauon, there are fuch prints of God, which, if
ihey were ail fully underftood by us, are fufticieat to this pur-
pofe ? For ihs queftion is not concerning tlic woiks of God
without us, but concerning us. The pluin queftion is this,
*- Whether man can, from thofe Vv'Oiks of God alone, without
the help of revelation, obtain fuch a knowledge of God, as is
iuffxient to the purpofe mentioned^"

Now the quefiion being concerning our power, or rather the
exfeut of ou,r pozccr, 1 know but four ways that can be thought
upon to come to a point about it : Either,

1, By divine revelation we may be informed what natures
light unaffifted can do. We would willingly put the matter on
this illbe : Our adverfarics will not ; fo we fnall leave it. Or,

2. So'.ne apprehen4 that the way to decide this, is, to take
our meafures from the nature of God; and to inquire, When
God was to make or did frame man, with what powers it was
proper for him to endue him ? or, with what exftnt oj power,
conndering the infinite wifdom, goodnefs and power of the
Creator? This way the djiOs would go. But, i. It feems a
little prefumptuous for us to prefcribe, or meafure what was fit
for God to do, by what appears to us fit to have been done.
For when we have foared as high as we can, we mufl fall down
again ; for God's counfels are too deep for us, and if we ibould
think this or that fit for God, yet he having a more full view
of things, may think quite the contrary ; and thus all that we
can co:ne to here in this way, is but a weak and prefumptuous
conjcraure. 2. If in fact, what we think fit, or conjecture
fit for God to have done, it be evident that God has not
done ; that he has given no fuch power or ex/.ent of it, as we
judge ncceflary, our judgment is not only weakly founded,
but plainly falfe; yea, and impious to boot : For if God has
done otherwife, it is certain that the way which we prefcribed
was not bed ; nor can we hold by our own apprehenfion, what-
ever piezus it is built on, without an implicit charge of folly a-
gainft God. q. Whatever we may pretend the wifdom of God
requires to be done for, cr given to man, if by ao divine a^i

there

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 95

there is any evidence that he has (o done, though there be
ro proof of his having done the contrary, yet it weakens the
evidence of ai( we can fay, if the thing is fuch in its nature, as
would be known by experience, if exiftent ; becaufe, in that
cafe, the whole ftrefs of cur argument leans upon a fuppofuicn
that we are capable of judging of the wifdcm of God, while it
is certain, we have not ail thofe circumftanccs under our view,
which may make it really fit to ^Ol this May rather than that,
or that way rather than this, which on the other hand he cer-
tainly hss. This way then we cannot decide the cafe.

3. We may immediately perhaps judge of the extent of
mans ability m this fort, by a dirzd inquiry into the nature of
the powers*' But this way is as uncertain as the former; for
there is no agi cement amcngfl the mofi judicious about the na-
ture of thofe powers, without endlefs controvcrfies. And all
that are really judicious own fuch darknefs in this matter, that
will not allow them to pretend them,felves capable to decide the
queliion this way. It is little we know of the nature, or poic-
ers, or aStings of fpirits : Nor do I believe that ever any per-
fon that underftands, will pretend to decide, the controverfy
this way. Wherefore,

4. We mud, upon the whole, give over the bufmefs, or in-
quire into the extent of our ability by experience ; and judge
what man can do by what he has done. If not one has made
fufficient difcoveries of God, it is rafn to fay that any one can
by the mere light of nature make them : More cfpecially it will
appear fo, if we confider, that all mankind muft be pretended
equally capable of ihefe difcoveries, which concern their own
practice. It is (Irange to pretend that all are capable of doing
that which none has done. Further, thefe difcoveries are not of
that fort that may be fufficient to anfwer their end, if one in
one age iliall m.ake fom»e fieps towards them, and another after-
wards improve them : But it is neceOary that every one, in
every age, and at every period of his life, have exad"! ac-
quaintance with tliem, in fb far as is needful to rcgulnte his
practice in that period of his life. W'hen I am in one flation,
I muft either fail in the refpect due to Gcd, and fo lay myfelf
open to juftice, or I mufi know as much of Gcd, as is requi-
{ne to influence a due regard in that Haticn, or that part cf m.y
life that now runs ; and therefore an univcrfal dt^t^ as to thofe
difcoveries muft inevitably overthrow the pretendtd ability cf
maa to make ihefe difcoveries, and confequently i\\t fufficiency

of

96 » AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, iv

of natures light \o beget or maintain religion, which cannot be
fupported without them.

Now for clearing this matter, It is to be confiderfd, that
what wc are upon is a negative, and it belongs to thofe who
aflirm man abU to make fuck difcoveries of God, to (how by whom
and where thefe difcoveries have been made, or to produae
thofe notices oi God that are built on the inere light oj nature f
that zxt fujicient to this purpofe. Now none of them dare pre-
tend this has been done, or, at leafl, ftiew who has done it, or
make the attempt themfelves; and therefore we might take it as
confeiTed, that it is not to be done.

But if it is ftill pretended, that this has been done, though
without telling us by whom, or pointing to thefe difcoveries
where we may find them ;

1 anfwer, How Ihall we know this ? May we know it by the
efFe6ts of it, in the lives of thofe, who either have had no other
light i'ave that of nature, as it was with the philofophers of old be-
fore Chrift, or who own none other fave that of nature, as the deifis
and others who rejected Chrlflianity ? Truly if we judge by this
rule, we are fure the negative will be much confirmed? For it is
plain that thofe notions of a God, which were entertained by the
philofophers of old, influenced none of them to glori/y ki?n as
God. The vulgar Fleathens were void of any rcfpec\ to the true
God; nay, by the whole of their pra6lice bewrayed the pro-
foundeft ignorance, and moft contemptuous difregard of him.
The philofophers, not one of them excepted, whatever notions
they had of a Deity, and whatever length fome of them went
in morality, upon other inducenents, yet Ihewed nothing like to
xh^xX peculiar, high and extenfive reJpeSl to the one true God which
we now inquire after. We may bid a defiance to the delfts, to
fliew us any thing like It in the practice even of a Socrates, a
Plato, a Seneca, or any others of them. Their virtue was
plainly built upon another bottom. It has been judicioufly ob-
i'erved by one of late, that there was little notice taken of God
in their ethicks; and I may add, as little regard in their praciice.
Nor are the lives of our deifts, or others fince, any better
proof of {\-\Q fufpciency of the natural notices of God, to beget
and lupport a due veneration for him.

If the deifis declmc this trial of the fujficiency of thofe dij-
coveries of a God, by their influence upon praElice, then we
muft look at them in themfelves. And here wc mufi have re-
courfe, either to thofe who had no acquaintance with ihc fcrip^

ture

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 97

ttlre revelation ; or to thofe who have given us accounts of God
aoiongft ourlelves ; who though they own not the Jcriptures to be
from God, y-t have had accefs to them, for the improvement of
their own notions about God. The laft fort might be cafl, as
incompetent witnelTes in this cafe, upon very relevant giounds.
But we fhall give our enemies all that they can de(ire, even as
to the advantage they may have this way, that they may fee our
caufe is not wanting In evidence and certa-niy*

We begin then with thofe who have been left to the m^re
light of nature, to fpeji out the letters of God's name, from the
works of creation and providence, without any acquaintance
with the more plain fcripture account of God. Now what we
have to fay as to them, we iliall comprize in a few obfervations*

1. As for the attainments of the vulgar Heathens , there is no
place for judging of them otherwife than by their pra8ice.
They have configned nothing to writing, and fo we have no
other way to guefs at their opinions in matters of rdigion^ but
either by their praBice, or by afcribing to them the principles of
thofe, who in their refped^ivc countries, had the difpofal of
thefe matters. Whichfoever way we confider the matter, it mud
be owned that the vulgar Heathens were iVjpidlv ignotant as to
the truths of religion. If we make their praBice the meafure
of judging, which in this cafe is necelTary, none can hefitate
about it. If we make the principles and knowledge of their
leaders the ftandard, whereby we are to judge of their attain-
ments, and make a fuitable abatement, becaufe fcholars mud
always be fuppofed to know lefs than their mafters, I am fure
the matter will net be much mended, as the enfuing remarks
will in part clea?'.

2. As to the philofopher5, if I had time and opportunity to
prefent in a body or fyjlcnidW that has been faid, not by one of
them, but by ail the beft of them put together, it would put any
one that reads, to wonder, that they, ** who weie fuch giants,"
as an excellent perfon fpeaks, " in all other kinds of literature^
** Ihould prove fuch dwarfs in divinity, that they mipht go to
*^ fchool to get a lelTon from the mod ignorant of Chriflians that
*^ know any thing at all *." Any one that will but ^ive himfelf
the trouble to perufe their opinions about God, as they lie fcat-
tered in their writings, or even where they are propofed to
more advantage by thofe, who have colle6^ed and put them to-
gether,

* See Char. Wolfeky's Rcafonablenefs of Scripture Belief*

M

9^ AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, iv-

gether, will Toon be convinced of how low a ftature their divi-
nity was, and how juftly the apoOle Paul faid, that by their
wifdom they knew not God' All their knowledge of God was
no more than plain and grofs ignorance, of which the heft of
them were not ignorant, and therefore Thales, Solon, Socrutes,
and many others, fpcke either nothing of God at all, or that
which was next to nothing. And it had been well for others, if
they had done fo too ; what they fpoke, not only failing Ihort
of a fufficient account, but prefenting moft abominable and mif-
ihapcn notions about God ; of uhich we have a large account in
Cicero de Natura Deoriim *.

3. Befides that endlefs variety amongft different perfcns, in
their opinions about a Deity, which is no mean evidence of
their darknefs, even the very fame perfons, who feem to give
the bell accounts, are wavering and uncertain, fay and unfay,
feem pofitive in one place, and immediately in the very next
fcntence feem to be uncertain and fluctuating. Thus it is with
them all, and thus it ufually is with perfons who are but gro-
ping in the dark, and know not well how to extricate ihem-
felves.

4. They who go furthefl, have never adventured to give any
methodical account. They wanted materials for this ; and
therefore give but dark hints here and there. Cicero^ who
would make one expe6l fuch an account, Vv'hile he infcribes his
book De Natura Deorum, yet eOablifhes fcarce any thing ; but
fpends his time in refuting the opinion of others, without daring
to advance his own f.

5. They who have gone furthcO, are too narrow in their ac-
counts, they are manifeftly defcdive in the moft material things*

They

* Cicero, Lib. i. P. 4. ^// 'vero Deos ejje dixfrunty tanta funt m
'varietate ac dijfentione conjlituti^ ut eornm molejlum Jit atinumerare fenten"
tias. Nam de fj^uris Deorum Cff de locis atque fcdihus l^ adiom 'vitce^
multa dicuntur, &c. — " But thofe who have affirmed that there are
" Gods, have gone into fo great a variety and difference of opinion, that
«« it is diiTicuh to enumerate their fentimenrs, for many things are faid
« by them concerning the ihapes of ike Gods, their places, habitations,
** and manner of life."

f De Natura Deorum, Lib. 2. Any inquit, obliius es quod initio dix£'
rim, facilius me talihus de rebus, quod non fcntirem quam quod ftntirem
dicere p^>JJ'f. — « Have you forgot that I told you at the beginning, that
« I could more eafily tell what 1 did not think, than what I thought,
« of thef^ matters !"

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS.

99

They are all referred about the number cf the Gods. It is
true (he beft do own that there is one Supreme ; but then there is
fcarce any of them pofuivc that there' are no more Gods fave
one. No not Socrates himfelf, who Is fuppofed to die a martyr
for this truth, durft own this plainly. And while this is unde-
termined, all religion is left loofe and uncertain ; and mankind
cannot know how to diliribute their regard to the feveral dei-
ties. Hence another defeat arifes, and that is about the fuptr'
eminency of the divine excellencies' Although the Supreme
Being may be owned fuperior in order ; yet the inferior deities
being fuppofed more immediate in their influence, this will
fubftradt from the Supreme Deity much of his refpedl, and be-
ftow it clfewhere. Moreover, about God's creating power their
accounts are very uncertain, few of them owning it plainly.
Nor are any of them plain enough about the fpecial providence
of God, without which it is impoflibie to fupport religion in the
world.

6. As their accounts are too narrow, fo in what they do own
they are too general. But v^ill this maintain religion? No, by
no means. But there muft be a particular diicovery of thefe
things. Well, do they afford this ? Nay, fo far are they from
explaining themfelves to any purpofe here, that induftrioufly
they keep in dark generals. The divine exce'lencieSf unlefs it
be a few negative ones, they do feldom attempt any explication
of. H\s providence they dare not attempt any particular account
of. The extent of it to a!l particular a6i:ions is denied by many
of their fchools, owned diflincl:iy by fcWf if any ; but particularly
cleared up by none of them*. The laws whereby he rules men
are no where declared. When fome of them are infifted on in
tlic'ir eihicksf the authority of God in them, which is the only
fupreme ground of obedience, and that which alone can lay any
foundation for our acceptance in that obedience at God's hand,
is no where taken notice of. The holmefs of the divine nature,
which is the great reftraint from fin, is little noticed, except
where fome of the more abominable evils are fpoke of. The

goodnefs

* DoSlrinam de procidentia rerum particularijice gratia a 'vete-'

ribus (quatenus ex eorum libris qui extant, coilegi poteji) remijfius crcdi oh"
fer-jamus: Herbert de VeritaLC, pag. 271, 272. — " Vv'e obferve that
*< the dodrine of univerfai providence and particular grace was bat
" faintly believed by the ancients, io far as can bi colieilcd from
" their books."

loo AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. iv.

goodncfs of God as a rewarder^ is not by any of them cleared
up* And yet upon thefe things the whole of religion hangs,
which by them are either wholly pafled over, or mentioned in
generals, or darkened by explications that give no light to the
generals; at leaf!:, and for moft part, are fo far from explain-
ing, that thev obfcure, nay corrupt them, by blending perni-
cious falfhoods withtli/C moft valuable truths.

•7. The difcoveries they offer are not for the moft part pro-
ven, but merely aflerted. Their notions are moft of them
learned from tradition, and they Were, it would feem, at a iofs
about arguments to fupport them. Where the greateft certain-
ty is required, leaft is found.

8. Where they do produce arguments, as they do fometimes,
for the being and providence of God in general, they are too
(dark and nice, both in matter and manner^ to be of any ufe to
the generality of mankind.

To have produced particular inftances for the juftificatlop
of each of thefe obiervations, would have been too tedious.
Any one that would defire to be fatisfied about them, may be
fully furnilhed with inftances, if he will give himfelf the
trouble to perufe Cicero de Natura Deoru?n, Diogenes Laer-
tius's Lives of the Philofophers, or Stanley's Lives ; but efpe-
cially the writings of the feveral philofophersthemfelves con-
cerning this fubject. Nor v/ili this taflv be very tedious, if he-
is but directed to the places where they treat of God : For they
iiifift not long on tliis fubjed^j and the better and wifer fort of
them are moft fparing.

When I review thefe obfervations, which occurred by my rea-
ding the works of the Heathens, and their opinions concerning
God, I could not but admire the grofs inadvertancy, to give it no
yi^orfe word, of the deifts, (and more efpeciaily 0/ the late lord
Herbert, who vjas a man of learning and application) who pre-
tend that tlie knowledge of tbofe general attributes of God, his
greatiicfs and goodnefs, vulgarly expreffed by Gplivius Maximus,
are fufficient : Since it is plain from what has been faid, i. That
this general knowledge is of no fignificancy to influence fuch a
peculiar, high arid extenfive, pra(5^ical regard to the Deity, as
the notion of religion necetfariiy imports. Of which even Blount
was, it feems, aware, when he ccnfcfies in his Religio Laid,
that there is a neccflity that his articles muft be well explainedo
?. It is plnn that the philofophers, and confcquently the com-
pson people, did not underftand well the meaniij^ of thofe arti-

cles^

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. loi

cles, or of thofe general notions concerning: God, at leaft, in
any degree anlwerable to the end we now have in view.

I dare lubmll thele obiervations, as to their truth, to any im-
partial perfon, who will be at pains to try them, upon the
grapting of a twofold reafonable demand. I. That he wiii con-
sult either the authors themfelvcs, or thofe, who cannot be fuf-
pe(Sted of any bias, by their being Chriflians, which 1 hope de-
iils will think jufi ; fuch as Cicero, Diogenes Lacrtius, &c. or
thofe who have made large colle6iions, not merely of their
general fentences concerning God ; but of their explications. In
which fort Stanley excels. 2. I require that, in reading the
authors, that they do not lay hold on z general ajfertion, and fo
run a.vay, without confidering the whole of Mhat the authors
fpeak on that head. 1 he reafons why I make thefe demands,
are, firft, fome perfons defigning, for one end or other, to il-
luftrate points in ChriRianity with quotations from Heathen au-
thors, i2L\kc up general exprtjjions, which feem congruous v^itn,
or may be the fame, which the fcripture ufes, without confidsnng
how far they differ, when they both defcend to a particular ex-
plication of thole general words. Again, fonje Chriftians, wri-
ting the Jves of philofophers, and colle6ting their opinions, are
milled by favour to fome particular perfons, of whom they have
conceived a vaft idea, and therefore either fupprefs or wrefl
v/hat may detract from the perfon they defign to magnify. M.
Dacier, for inftance, has written the life of Plato: but that ac-
count is the ilTue of a peculiar favour for that philofopher's notions
in general ; and it is evidently the aim of the writer to recon-
cile his fentiments to the Chriflian religion* A v/ork that iome
others have attempted before. To this purpofe Plato's words
are wrefted, and fuch conftrutlions put on them, as can no other
way be juftified, but by fuppofmg that no material points of the
Chriftian religion could be hid from Plato,or his mafter Socrates.
And yet after all, Plato's grofs miOakes, and that in matters of
the highefl import ; yea, and fuch of them, as are fuppofed,
generally, to lie within the reach of nature's light, are fo ob-
vious and difcernible, that the evidence of the thing extorts an
acknowledgment. To give but one inflance ; after the writer
has made a great deal ado about Plato's knowledge of the Tri-
nity*, a flory which hath been oft toJd, but never yet proven,
jt is plainly acknowledged, that he fpeaks of the Three Perfons

of

* M, Dacier's Life of Plato, pag. i|i.

I02 AN INQ^UIllY INTO THE chap. iv.

of ^he Deity as of three Gods, and three different principles ;
M'hich 13, in phin terms, to throw down all that was built be-
fore, and prove that Piato knew neither the Truiity, nor the
one true G d' Finally, general fentences occur in thofe au-
thors, which Teem to import much more knowledge oF God,
thin a further fearch into their writings will allow us to believe
they hid : For any one will quickly fee, that in thofe general
expreHrions, they fpoke as children that underilood not what
they fay, or at leai^, have but a very imperfect notion of it. And
though this may feem a fevere refledlion on thefe great men ;
yet I am fure none fhali impartially read them, who will not own
it juft.

Bjt now, to return to our fubje£t, this fufficient difcovery of
God not being found amongft thofe, who were flrangers to the
fcrptures and Chriftianity, let us next proceed to confider thofe,
who have had accefs to the fcriptures, and lived fince the Chrif-
tian reli-:ion obtained in the world. And here it muft be owned,
that fince that time philofophers have much improven natural
theology, and given a far better account of God, and demonilrated
many of his attributes from reafon,that were little known before,,
to the confuiion of atlieills. From the excellent performances of
this kind, which are many, I defign not to detracl:. I am con-
tent that a due value be put on them : but ftill 1 am for putting
them only in their own place, and afcribing no more to them,
than isrejlly their due. Wherefore, notwithftanding what has been
now readily granted, I tliink I may confidently otter the few fol-
lowing remarks on them.

1. We might ju'dly refufe tliem, as no proper meafure of the
ability of una jjijltdr talon, in as much as it cannot be denied, that
the l^ghty whereby thofe difcoveries have been made, was bor-
rowed from the fcriptures: of which none needs any other proof
than merely to confider the vafi improvement of knowledge, as
to thofe matters, immediately after the fpreading of Chriilianity,
which cannot, with any tliew of reafon, be otherwife accounted
for, than by owning that this light was derived from the fcriptures^
SLiid the obfervation and writings of ChriPiians, vvh5ch made even
the Heathens alhamed of their former notions of God. But not to
infifl: on this.

2. Who have made thofe improvements of natural theology?
Not the Heathens or deifls. It is little any of th-m have done
this way. The accurate fyflems of natural theology have come
from Chriftian philofophers, who do readily own that the fcrip-

ture

PRINCIPLES OF TBE MODERN DEISTS.

103

ture points them, not only to the notions of God they therein
deliver, but alfo to many of the proofs WkewKe, and llat their
reafon, if not thus adii^ed, would have failed them as nuich,
as that of the old philofophers did them.

3. It is worthy our obfervation, that fuch of the Chilians, who
favour the deilis mod, fuch as the Socini^ns and fome others, do
give moft lame and defediive accounts of God* They who lean
much to reafon^ their reafon leads them into thofe miftakes about
the nature 2^u& knowledge oi God, which tend exceedingly to wea-
ken the pTCL&icalinfluenceoi the notion of a God. And we have
reafon to believe that the deifts will be found to join with them,
in their grofs notions of God, as ignorant of ihc free aGions of
men, before they arc done, and as not fo particularly ccncerned
about them in his providence, with many fuch-like notions, which
iap the foundations of all prad^ical regard to God.

4. But let the befl of tJiefe fyfltms be condefcended on, they
cannot be allowed to conX2i\n Jufficient difcoveiiei of God. For
it is evident beyond contradiction, that they are neither full e-
nough in explaining what they in the general own, nor do
they extend to fome of thofe things v^'hich are of mofi ncceflfity
and influence to fupport praBical rdigion. They prove a pro-
vidence, but cannot pretend to give any fuch account of if, as
can either encourage or direct to any dependence on, truft in,
or pra61icai improvement of it. And the like rr^ight be mzdo.
appear of other perfections. Again, they cannot pretend to
any tolerable account of the remiunerative bounty, the pardon-
ing mercy and grace of Gcd, on which the whole of leligion,
as things now fiand, entirely hangs. Can they open thefe
things fo far as is neceiT?.ry to hold up religion in the world ?
They who know what religion is, and what they have done,
or may do, will not fay it.

5. In their proofs of thefe truths, there muft be owned a
want cf that evidence, which is requifite to compcfe the mind
in the perfuafion of them, and eflablifa it againft cbjections.
Let fcripture light be laid afide, which removes objeClions ; and
let a man have no more to confirm him of thofe truths fave thefe
arguments, the difficulties daily occurring from obvious provi-
dences will jumble the obferver fo, that he uill find thefe
proofs fcarcely fufficient to keep him firm in his alfent to the
trutlis ; and if fo, far lefs will they be able to influence his
practice fuitably againft temptations to fin. Now this may arife,
not fo much from the real zvcaknefs of the arguments, which

may

104 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. iv.

may be conclufive, as from this, that moft of them are rather
drawn ah ah far do , than from any clear li^ht about the nature
of the object known ; and hence there comes not that light a-
long, asto difficulties, which is neceff^ry to remove them. And
though thefe arguments filence in difpute, and clofe the adver-
fary's mouth ; yet they do not fatisfy the mind. Moreover,
fome of no mean confideration, have pretended that many of
thefe demonftrations, even as to fome of the moO confidt^rable
attributes of God, are inconclufive : Particularly they have
alTerted, that the unity of God was not to be proven by the light
of nature f nor fpecial providence. But not to carry the matter
thus far, it is certain that the force of thefe demonfiratioiiS mufi:
Jie very fecret, that fuch perfons, who owned the truths, and
bore them <TOod-will, yet could not find it.

Much more might be faid on this head, but I am not wil-
ling to invalidate thefe arguments, or even to (hew all that
jnipcht, perhaps, not only be faid, but made app«^ar againft
them. But whatever there is as to (his, it is certain that the
difcoveries of God by nature's light being fmall, are eafily
clouded, by entangling difficulties arifing from the dark occur-
rences of providence, and the natural v/eaknefs and unftpidnefs
of our minds, which are always to be found in matters fub-
lime, and not attended with ftrong evidence. And attention in
this cafe will increafe the darknefs, and force on fuch an ac-
knowledgment as Simonides made to Fliero, the tyrant of Sy-
racufe. That ** the longer he thought about God, the mere
** difficulty he found to give any account of him."

6. They muft, whatever be allowed as to their validity in
themfelves, be owned to be of no \i^c to the generality, nay,
to the far greater part of mankind. No man who knows them,
and knows the \vorld, v ill pretend that the one half of man-
kind is able to comprehend the force of them. And fo they
are fiill in the dark about God ; which quite everts the whole
{lory about the fufficiency of the natural difcoveries of a Deity.

7. It is plain, that there is no ferving God, waRing with
or worfbipping of him, uithout thoughts, and ferious ones too,
oflim. Now his nature and excellencies are infinite, how then
fliall we conceive of them ? Our darknefs ard weakncfs will not*
allow us to think of him as he is, and conceive thole perfections as
they are in him. And to conceive othcrwife is dangerous. We
may mifiake in other things without fin ; but to frame wrong, and
Other conceptions of God and his excellecies, than the truth of

the

tRINCiPLES OF THE MODERNIDEISTS. 105

tlie thing requires, is dangerous and finful ; for it frames an idoL
Now though this difnculty may be eafy to lefs attentive minds ;
yet it will quite confound pcrfons who are in earned, and under-
hand what they are doing, in their approaches to Gcd. Nor
can ever the minds of fuch be fatisfied in our prefent ftate, other-
wife than by God's telling us, how we are to conceive of him,
and authorizing us to do it in a way of condefcenfion to our pre-
fent dark and infirm ftate.

8. 1 cannot forbear to notice, as what warts not its own
weight in this cafe, though in condefcenfion we did a little wave
arguments drawn from the prad.ical infiutnu of truths t that how-
ever great the improvements, as to notions of truths concerning
the nature of the Deity may of late have been, vet the effe&s of
thefe notices in their highell improvement, have been far from re-
commending them, ^s fufficient to the end we have now in view.
This natural theology \\2^s vd^xhtr u\7i<\Q men more learned than
more pious. Where fcripture truth has not been received in its
love ^nd power f men have feldom been bettered by their impJove-
ments in natural theology. But we fee in experience, that
they who can prove mofl and beft in thefe matters, evidence lead
regard to the Deity in their practice.

1 (hall add one obfervation more, which at once enforces the
argument we are upon, againft the fufficiency of natural religion ^
and cuts off a pretended retortion of ir, againl) the Chriftian reli-
gion ; and it is this: The religion the deifts plead for, and are o-
bliged to maintain. Is a religion that pleads acceptance on its own
account, which has no provifion againft^z/z^^ and efcapes, as fhall
be demonftrated hereafter ; a religion which confequently muO be
more per fed , and fo requires a more exaB knowledge of the Deity in
order to its fupport : whereas. theChridian religion is one which
is calculated for man in hh fallen ftate; and xht fall is every
where in it fuppofed, and a gracious provifion made againft
defeBs hi knowledge, SiVid unallozved praiiical ef capes*

N CHAR

io5 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. v.

CHAP. V.

Proving the Infufpciency of Natural Religion from its DefeC"
tivenefs as to the Worjliip of God,

THE araument we are to improve againft the Jiifficiency of
natural religionm this chapter, might have been coniidered as a
branch of the foregoing: But, that we may be more diftin(!^,
and to fliew a recr:3rd unto the importance of the matter, we ftiall
confider it as a difiinct arcfuTrent by itfelf.

Now therefore, when we are to fpeakcf the zvorfap oi God,
It is not of that inward veneration that confifts in a6is of the
mind, fuch ^s efleem, fear, love, trufi, and the like; but of the
outward, Rated, and folemn way of expreffing this inzuard vene-
rafi.on^ That there (hould not only bean inward regard to the
Deity in our minds, inH'encing the whole of our outward deport-
ment ; but th t hefides, there (hould be fixed, outward, and fo-
lemn ways of rxercliing and expreffing thele inward a6\ings,
feems evident bevond any reafonable exception, —

,T. From the general agreement of tlie world in this point.
All the worid has owned fome word'ip necefl'arv. Every nation
and neonle had their peculiar way of worlliip*. It is true, moft of
thernvvere ridiculous many of them plainly wicked, and all of
them vain; but this makes not againO the thing in general;
onlv it befpeaks the darknefs of nature's light, as to the way cf
manatrintj in particulars, that which in general it directs to.

2. The deiffs theinfelvcs own thi^ ni'^ch. Heibert in his trea-
tife, de Religione Gentifium, confcfTes it a fecond branch of the
generally received reh'gion, for uh'ch he pleads, that GodistO
lezvorjiiippsd. It is tru-^, in his next, while be tells us that vir-
tue and pif-ty were ow n^d to be the prindpal means of worjhip^
ping him, he would feem to preclude us from the benefit of the for-
mer acknowlediment. But yet he dares not allert, that this
which h? co-id elcend.'^ on was the onI\ zvay^ and fo pretend the
worOiip w;^ fpeak of unneceffary : But Ijeing to hold forth the fuffi-
ciency of this natural religmn, he was loth to fpeak any more cf
that, wljicii wou'd lead bins if he had ct.nfidcred it, unto a difco-
very of its nakednefs. But others of the deifts do own the necef-
fityof fucha worlliip, and pretend prayer and praife lufficient to

tliis

* Herbert de Veritate, r?-S« 271^ 272.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 107

this purpofe, as he alio doth in his other treatifes, particularly
dt Vent ate*.

3. The fame rrafons which plead for inward acls, peculiarly
directed to this end, plead for outward veneration likewife. If
we have minds capable of this inward veneration, lo are we
capable of outward expreilions ; and <ire under the fame obli-
gation to employ thofe latter forts of powers to the honour
of God, that binds us ro the former. Nor is there more rea-
fon why, befides that tranfient regard we ought to pay him in
all our actions, there ihould be inward a6ts peculiarly defigned
to exprefe our in^^ard veneration, than that there fnouid be out-
ward ftated acts, peculiarly defigned for the fame purpofe.

4. The nature of fociety pleads loudly for this. Mankind as
united in focieties, whether ielTer, as ifamilies, or greater, as
other focieties, depend entirely on God ; and therefore owe him
reverence, and the expreffion of it in fome joint and fixed way.
Public benefits require public acknowledgments: And this
fort of dependence on, and fubjeCtion to the Deity, (hould cer-
tainly have fuitable returns.

5. It is incontrollably evident, that many in the world do
fl-iake otFali regard to the Djity, and walk in an open denance
to him, and thofe laws which he has eftablijlied. Certainly there-
fore, it is the duty of fuch as keep firm, openly to teftify
their dependence on and regard to the Deity, which is not fuffi-
ciently done by the perform. ince of thofe things, which are mate-
rially according to the appointment of God. For what regard to
Gjd there is, induencins: to thofe outward ads, cannot be rleai ly
diicernei by on -lookers, who kn^^v not but fomewhat, befde any
regard to the authority of the lawgiver, may be at the bo?{oni of
ail. It is therefore necelTary that there be public, (olemn ac-
tions, dire6ity and plainlv importing our avouc!)ment of a regard
to him, in oppofition to thefe atixonts that are publicly offered
to him.

6. This worfliip is necelTary in order to maintain and cherifh
ih'3L\inward veneration. It is weM kaown, however much v/e are
bound to it, yet the fenfj of this obligation, and that veneration

itielf

* Herbert de Veritate, pag. 272. Nos int?rca externum illuTn Dei «.</-
ti(m ffrutf aliqKa religionis fpecie J ex omni pculo regionc, genie evici^ms. — •
*< In x'aQ mean time we have proved this eKternal wo rib '.p of Gc.-^, un-
«-der fome appearance of religion, fum every age, country, and na-
M tion.'-

io3 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. v.

itfelf to which we are obliged, is net fo deeply rivetted I'pon
our niiuds, but it needs to be cheriilied, and the habits Hrength-
ened by a<?lings. It is not fo eafy for men to do this by inward
meditation, who for moft part are little accuftomed to this way,
and can indeed fcarce fix their minds in this inward exercife at all,
cfpecially if they have no fixed way ofexercifing it, but are iet't
at liberty to choofe their own way. Religion therefore muft go
out of the world, or, there mufi be fiated and fixed wavs of exer-
cifing it. This is eafily jufiifiable from experience, which (hews,
that where once public worfhip is difregarded, any other fort
of refpe6l to the Deity quickly falls of its own accord.

7. It is lucejfary for the benefit of hu7iian jociety* The foun-
dations of human fociety are laid upon the notion of a God, and
the facrednefs of oaths, and the fixed notions of right and
wrong, which all fiand and fall together. Nor is there any way
of keeping that regard to thofe things, which are the props of
human fjciety, without fuch a worfliip of God, as that we plead
for. This all the lawgivers weie of old fatisfied about, and took
meafures accordingly.

8. If religion has any valuable aidy then certainly this muft be
one main part of it, to lead man Xo future Jiapphiefs ; which can-
not, with any (hew of realon, be alleged to confift in any thing
bcfides the enjoyment cf God. And it is plainly ridiculous to
fuppofe, that mankind can be kept up in any fixed expe6^ation
of, or clofe purfuit after this, if not animated and encouraged by
fome, nay frequent experiences of commerce betwixt him and
the Deity here. And it isfcolilh lo pretend, that this is other-
wife to be had, in any degree anfvverable fo this end, in any other
way than in the way of defigned, fixed, folemn and (fated worlhip.

Now this much beincj faid in the general for clearing the
ncceifity of fuch a icorfhipj and the importance of it in reli-
gion; it remuns that we pro^e the light of nature infufficient to
direct us as to the way of it. And this we conceive may be cafi-
ly made appear from the enfuing grounds.

1. The mdnifcft mifiakes all the wr-vld fell into, who were
left in this matter to the condu6f of the mere light of nature, a-
bundantly evince the inccrppetency of nature's light for man's
direction, with repe<5\ to the wordiip of God. Every nation had
their own way of woiihip* and tliat fiulied with blafphtmous,
unworthy, ridiculous, ungrounded, impious and horrid rites and
ufages; of v.-hich there are innumerable accounts every where to
be met with, Vvecannb where in the Heathen world find any

voifnip

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 109

worfhip that isnot manifeftly unworthy of, and injurious to the
glorious God. Surely that light that fuffered ihe world to lofc
their way fo evidently, niuft be fadly defeil^tive. Their woriliip
was every where fuch, even where wife men were the inftitutei;s
of it, that it could not fatisfy any perfon who had any true notion
of God : and was the fcorn of the v^ife and difcerning. Nor
can it with any Ihew of reafon be pleaded, that thefe defects and
enormities are to be charged, not on the dejetiiventfs of nature's
light, but the negligence of thofe who did not ufe it to that advan-
tage it might have been ufed ; fince it has been above proven,
that the only way we can judge what nature's light can do, is
by confidering what it has done fomewhereor other. And thefe
enormities did every where obtain : they were not peculiar to
fome places; but v^herever men were left to the mere light of
nature, there they fell into them.

2. Thefe ways of worlhip, viz. prayer and praife, which are
condefcended upon by the deifts, and feem in general to have the
countenance of reafon ; yet, as they are diicovered by nature's
light, can no way fatisfy. Be it granted that nature's light
dire61s to them in general, and binds them on us as du-
ty; yet it mull be allowed, that this is not enough; for the
difficulty is, how we fhall in particular manage them to the glcry
of God, and our own advantage. The duty is-ftated in the ge-
neral, and when we begin to think of compliance with it, we
find the light of nature, like the Egyptian tafk-maiiers, let u§
our work, and demand brick, while yet it ailcvv's us nojlrazo.
What endlefs difficulties are we caft in, about the matter of our
prayers and praifes? What things Ihall we pray to God, and
praife him fori^ How (hall we be furnifhed with fuch dilcoveries
of the nature, excellencies, and works of God ; and what things
are proper for us, as may be fufficient to guide us in our prayers
and praifes, and keep us up in a clofe attend mce en thefe duties
in the v/hole tra6t of our lives, without wearying or fainting?
Are we, becaufe we know not what is good or ill for us, \o hold
in mere generals, as the bed of the philofophers thought? if fo,
will the mind of man, for fo long a tract of time, be able to con-
tinue in this general way, without naufeating? Or, ihall we
defcend to particulars? If fo, how {hall materials be furnidied to
us for fuch particular addrelTes, who know fo little of God's
works, or our own wants? Again, who fhall teach us the way
and manner of praying and praifing, which will be acceptable
to G06. ? Shall every one's fancy be the rule ? If there be a

fixed

no AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. v.

fixed rule, Which, and where is it? Again, What fecurity
have we from the mere li.iht of njture, as to the fuccefs and
acceptance of thfie duties? It will be to no advantage to ex-
cept, that God requires of us no more than he has dirccled us
in ; for this is to beg the m.iin q jeOion. W^ere it once granted,
thjt nj more is required than what nature's light diretfs to,
there might be fome countenance for this plea, that what it
gives no directions in, will not be inrifted upon by God ; but
this is plainly refufeJ, and fo the difficulties remain. Nor is
it to more advantage to pretend, thjt the ful fiance being: agreed
to, God will not infiil upon circumfiances of worOiip : for the
difficulties objected refpecl not merely the circumftances, but
the very fubltantiai parts of thefe duli;?s. As to what may be
pretended of the inflaenct of the hopes of eternal life, toward the
keeping up men in an attendance on duties ; as to the particu-
lar manner of the perforinance of which, and the grounds of
acceptance, they are entirely in the dark. Th'.s plea fliall be
fully CO jfidered afterwar Js. And as it is obvious, that no gene-
ral luppoial of benefit can for any long trac\ of time keep men
fteadv i'^i the performance of actions, about the nature and ac-
ceptance of which tiiey are in doubt ; fo, it fhall be made ap-
pear \K\txi is no ground from the mere light of nature for any
i'>xz\\ hope of future felicity, as can relieve in this cafe.

3. The plain coafedion of the more thoughtful, wife and
difcerning of the Heathen world, plainly proves this*. The
followers of the famed Coufurious in China, though thev own
that there is one fi'preme God, yet profefs themfelves ig-
nora it of tiie way in which he is to be worOiipped, and fhere-^
fore think it fafer to abjiain from worlhipping, »han err in the
alh venation of improper honour to hrm. iMato in his fecond
A'cibiades, which he infcribes" Of Prayer," mikes it hii buii-
nef^to prove, '* That A'e know not how to manage prayer ;" and
therefore concludes it " fafer to abOain altogether, than err in
** the manner." Alc-biades is going to the temple to pray, So-
crates m*ets hi.m, diifuades him, and proves his inability to
minaa;e the dutv, of which he is at len-iih convinced;
whereapon Socrates concludes, ** You i'ee, fays he, thai it is
** not at all fafe for you to go and pray in the temple-r-1 am
** therefore of the mind, that it is much belter for you to be
*' lilent. — And it is neceiTiry \'ou fliould wait for iorae perfon

" to

* Hornbeck de Convcrfione Gentilium, Lib. 5. Cap. 6. pag. 47.

<i

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 1 1 1

*' to teach you how you ouglit to behave yourfelves, both to-
** wards the gods and men. To which AicibiadrS faid, And
** when will that tW,e come, Socrates? And who is he that
** will inilruiSl me? With what pleafure (hould I look on h'ni?
** To which he replies, He will do it who takes a true caie
** of you. But methinks, as we read in Homer, that IVlipeiva
** diffipated the mifl that covered Diomedes, and hindered him
** from difiinguilhing a God from a man ; fo it is neceffary,
** that he fnould in the fir(l place fcatter the darknefs that co-
** vers your foul, and afterwards give you th.f fe remedies that

that are neceffary to put you in a condition of diic-.rning
** good and evil ; for at prefent you know net hi w to rr^ake a
** difference. Akibiades favs, I think I mud defer my f^icri-
** fice to that time. Sccrates approves — You have reafon, fays
** he ; it is more fafe fo to do, than run fo great a rslk *. The
** famed Epicietus was fo much of the fame mind, that he knew
** no way but to advife every one to follow the cudom of their
** country in worfhip f ." Upon the fame account Seneca re-
jects all this worihip. And memorable is the confeffion of Jam-
blichus, a Platonic philoJbpher, "wlio lived in the fourth cen-
tury— '* It is not eafy to know what God will be pleafed with,
** unlefs we be either immediately infiru6ied by God ourfelves,
** or taught by fome perion whom God hath converfed with, or
** arrive at the knowledge of it by feme divine means or other :^."
Thus you fee how much thefc gieat men were bemifted in this
matter, and may eafily conclude what the cafe of the reft of
mankind was.

4. The very nature of the thing feems to plead againft the
fiifficiency of reafon in this point : For it feems plainly to be
founded on the cleared notions of nature's light, that the wor-
ihip of God is to be regulated by the will d.ud' plea fuje oi God ;
which, if he reveal not, how can we know it ? Hence it was
that the Heathens never pretended reafon, but always revelation
for their worfhip. The governors all of them did this. And
Plato tells us, " That laws concerning divine matters muft be
'* had from, the Delphick Oracles J".

Much

* We have the fame account of Socrates and Xenophen j of which
Staiilev, pag. '75.

f Epiiter. Enchirid. Cap. 3?.

+ Seneca Epif. 95. Jambl. de Vita Pytha^. Cap. 28.

<S Plato de Legibus.

112 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. vi.

Much more might be faid on this head, were it needful : but
I am apprehenfive this is a point that the deiils will not be fond
to difpute with us ; not only becaufe they are no great friends to
thisworfJiip, but becaufe they can fay fo little on this head,
ivhich has any fhew of reafon: of which their famed leader //er-
^^r^ was fufficisntly aware, when he tells us in his third article.
That virtue is the principal zoorfnip of God ; whereby he owns,
that there is indeed another part of, u hich he dare not namC; be-
caufe he knows not what to fay about it.

CHAP. VI.

Proving the Infufficiency of Natural Religion, from its Defec
tivcntfs as to the Difcovery wherein Mans Kappinefs lies-

NEXT to ih^ glory cf God, the \nd\^pu\My fupre?7ie end oi
man, and of the whole creation, of which 1 am tiot now to dif-
courfe, the happinefs of rnan, is, paft all peradventure, his chief
end* Yea, perhaps, if we fpeak properly, except as abovefaid,
it 13 his only end> For whatever man is capable of defigning, is
comprehended under this, beinf^ either what doth, or at leaft
is judged to contain fom.ewhat of happinefs in it, or what is fup-
pofed to contribute to that wherein fatisra6\ion is underficod to
confifl. Every thing a man aims at, is either aimed zX as good ia
itfelf, or contributing to ^wr^^i^flf. The firH is a part oi our
happinefs ; the lafl is not in proper fpeech fo defigned, but the
good to which it contribute?, and that Hill is as before a part of
our happinefs* If religion is therefore any way ufeful or fuffi-
cient, it mull be fo with refpe6\ to this end. And fince religion
not only claims fome regard from man, but pleads the prefer-
ence to all other things, and demands his chief concern, and his
being employed about it as the main hufinefsoi his life, it muft ei-
ther contribute more> toward this end, than any thing elfe, nay
be able to lead man to this end, ctherwife it deferves not that
regard which it claims, and is indeed of little, if any ufe to man-
kind- If then v.'e are able to evince that natural religion is not
fufficient to \Q2id m.an to that happinefs, which all men feek, and
is indeed the chief end of man, there will be no place left for the
pretence of its fufficiency, in fo far as It is the fubje6l of this
controverfy betwixt the deifts and us. And this we conceive

may

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEHN DEISTS. 113

l^ay be niade appear many ways. But in this chapter we fhali
confine ourfelves to one ot them.

If nature's light is not able to give any tolerable difcovery of
that wherein man's happinefs lies, and that it may by him be ob-
tained, then furely it can never furniJh him with a religion that
is able to conduct him to it. This cannot with any ihew of rea-
fon be denied. It remains therefore that I make appear, that na-
tures tight is not abU to difcover wherein mans happinefs lies^ and
its attainahUnefs, Now thisl think is fully made out by the fol-
lowing confiderations :

I. They who, being left to the condu61 of the mere light of
nature, have fought after that good wherein man's happinefs 13
to be had, could not come to any agreement or confiOency
among themfelves. This is a point of the hrft importance, as
being the hinge whereon the whole of a man's life muft turn ;
the fpring udiich muft fet m.an a going, and give life to all his
actions, and to this tliey inuft «ll be directed. This, if any
other thing ought to be eafily known ; and if nature's light
IS a fufficient guide, it mull give evident difcoveries of. But,
methioks, here is a great {\%n of a want of this evidence ; great
men, learned men, wife phllofophers and induflrious fearchers
of truth have fplit upon this point, into an cndlefs variety of
opinions ; infomuch th::t V^rro pretends to reckon up no lefs
than 288 different opinions. May I not now ufe the argument
of one of the deirls, in a cafe v\?hich he falfely fuppofes to be alike,
and thus in his own words argue upon this point, (only putting
in, the difcoveries of natures light about happimfs, or the evi^
dence oj thoje dijcovirieu in place of the evidence of the reafons
of the Chriflian religion, againfi which he argues) : ** If the
** difcoveries of it were evident, there could be no longer any
*' contention or ditTerence about the chief good ; all mem
** would embrace the fame and acquiefce in it : no prejudice
** would prevail againft the certainty of fuch a good*," **^ It is
** every man's greateR bufinefshere to labour for his happinefs,
** and confequently none would be backward to know it. And,
*' if all do not agree in it, thole marks of truth in it are not vifi-
*' ble, which are necelTarv to draw an adentf." But whatever
there Is in this, it is a moH certain argument of darknefs, that
there is fo great a difference, where the fear(2liers are many, it

18

* Oracles of Reafon, pag. 2o5.
^ Ibidi pa?, aoi.

Q

114 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE eriAP. vio

IS every one's interefl to find, and the bufinefs and fearch is
plied with great application.

2. The greateft of the philofophers have been plainly mifla-
ken in it. They efpoufed opinions in this matter, which are
not capable of any tolerable defence. Solon, the Athenian
Jawgiver, defined them *' happy who are competently furnifhed
** with outward things, a6l honeftly, and live temperately *-"
Socrates held, that there was but one chief good i which is
knowledge, if we may believe Diogenes Laertius in his life
Ariftotle, if we may take the fame author's words for it, places
it in virtue, health, and outward conveniency, which no doubt
was his opinion, fince he approved Solon's definition of the
chief good \ \ and herein he was followed by his numerous
fchool. Pythagorus tells us, that the ** knowledge of the per-
** fe<5\ions of the foul is the chief good." It is true, he feems
at other times to fpeak fomewhat differently ; of which we
may fpeak afterwards. Zeno tells us, that it lies in ** living
** according to nature." Cleanthes adds, that ** according t©
** nature is according to virtue." Cryfippus tells us, that It is
•* to live according to expert knowledge of things which hap-
*' pen naturallyj." It is needlefs to fperd tin.e in reckoning
up innumerable others, who all run the fame way> placing hap-
pinefs in that which is not able to afford it, as being finite, of
fhort continuance, fickle and uncertain. It is not my defign
to confute thofe feveral opinions. It is evident to any cne^
that they are all confined to time, and upon this very account
fail of what can make us happy.

3. They who fcem to come fome nearer the matter, and talk
fometlmes of conforviity to God being the chief good ; that it is
cur end to be like God, and the like ; as Pythagoras and feme
others J ; but efpeclally Plato, who goes further than any of the
refill ; yet cannot juiUy be alleged to have made the difcovery*
becaufe we have not any account of their opinions clearly deli-'
vered by themfelves, but hints here and there gathered up from
their writings, which are very far from falisfying us as to theif
n)ind. Befides they are fo variable, and exprefs themfelves (o
differently, in different places, that it is hard to find their mind;
nay 1 may add,they are, indufiriouily and cf dtfign obfcuie. 1 his
Alcinous the Platonic philofopher, tells us plainly enough in his

DoBrinc

* Stanley, pag. 26. Life of Solon, Cap. 9. + Stanley, pag. 540.
J Ibid, pag, 463, § Ibid, pag. 541, || Ibidj p. 192. Cap. 80

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 115

J^oElrine oj Plato ^ which is inferted at lenp:th in Stanley s Lives*
He fays," that he thought the difcovery of the chief good was not
*^ eafy, and if it were found out, it was not fafe to be declared."
^nd that for this reafon, he did communicate his thoughts about it
bjit to very few, and thofe of his moil intimate acquaintance. Now
the plain meaning of all this, in my opinion is, that he could not
tell wherein man's happinefs confifts, or what that is which is
able to afford it : or at moft, that though one way or other in his
travels, by his ftudies cr convcrfe, he had got feme notionsabout
It; yet he did not fufficiently underftand them, and was not able
to fatisfy himfelf or others about them, and that therefore, he
either entirely fuppreffed, or would not plainly fpeak out his
thoughts, leaft the world (hould fee his ignorance, and that though
his words differed, yet in very deed he knew no more of the mat-
ter than others. For to fay, that, upon fuppofition that his dif-
coveries had been fatisfying, as to truth and clearnefs, and that
he was capable to prove and explain them, they were not fit to
be made known to the world, is to fpeak the groffeft of nonfenfe;
for nothing was fo ncceffary to be known, and known univerfal-
ly, zsX^t chief good^ which every one is obliged to feek after.
To know this, and conceal the difcovery, is the mofl malicious
and invidious thing that can be thought of. And rather than
charge this on Plato, 1 think it fafer to charge ignorance on him.
He fpeaks fomewhat liker truth than others, while he tells us,
** That happinefs qonfiils in the knowledge of the chief good ;
** that phllofophers, who arc fuflficiently purified, arc allowed,
** after the diffolution of their bodies, to fit down at the table of
** the Gods, and view the field of truth ; that to be made like
<* God is the chief good ; that to follow God is the chief good."
Some fuch other expreflions we find. But what does all this fay ?
Poes it inform us that Plato underilood our happinefs to confifl
in the eternal enjoyment of God ? Some, who are loth to think
that Plato njilTed any truth of importance which is contained in
the fcripture, think fo : ^ut for my part, I fee no reafon to con-»
ynce me from all this that Plato underllood any thing tolerably
about the enjoyment of God^ either in time or after time, or that
he was fixed and determined wherein the happinefs of man con-
lifts, or that really any fuch ftate of future felicity is certainly
attainable. All this was only a heaven of his own framing and
fancy, fitted for philofophers; for the being of which, he could
give no tolerable arguments. And all this account fatisfies me
|io more that Plato underwood wh^'rein happinefs confulD, ihar^.
^ ' the

Ii6 AN'INOJJIRY INTO THE chap. yi.

the following docs, that he knew the way of reaching it, which
I fball tranfcribc from the fame chapter of AUinous's'aU) Brine of
Plato: ** Beatitude is a good habit of the genius, and this fimi-
** litude to God we fliall obtain, if we enjoy convenient nature^
** in our manner, education and ferife, according to law, and
** chiefly by reafon and difcipline, and inllitution of wifdom,
** withdrawing ouifclves as much as is poiTible from human
** afiairs, and being converfantin thefe things only which are
** underftood by contemplation: the way to prepare, and as it
'* were, to cleanfe the demon that is in us, is to initiate our-
** felves into higher dlfciplines; which is done by mufiCj
** arithmetic, aOronomy and geometry, not without fome ref-
** pect of the body, by gymnaftic, whereby it is made more
** ready lor the actions both of war and peace.'* I pretend not
to underRand him here : But this I underfland from him, that
one of three is certainj cither he underfiood not himfelf, or
had no mind that others (hould undcrltand ; or that he was the
moft unmeet man in the world to iiiftrucl mankind about this
important point, and to explain things about which the world
was at a lofs. When men fpeak at this rate, we may put what
meaning we p^cafe upon their words.

4. It is plain that none of them have clearly come to know
themfclves, or inform others that happinefs is not to be had hen ;
that it cor./ifis in the eternal enjoyment oj God after tiuie; and thai
(his ts attainable* Thefe are things whereabout there is a deep
filence, not fo much as a word of them, far lefs any proof. If
ever we were to expc6l fuch a thing we might look for it from
thole who have not merely touched at this fubje«S\ by the bye, and
in dirk hints, but have difcourfed of ??ioral e?ids on fct purpofe,
fuch as Cicero and Seneca. Cicero frequently te'ls that lie de-
figned to enrich his native country with a tranflation of all that
was valuable in thcGreck philofophers, he had perufed them for
this end, and thus acccmplKhed, he fets h.imfclt to write ofmO'
ral endSf which he does in five books. Here we may expe£\
fomevvhat to the purpofe : Br.t if we do, wc are dii'appointcd.
Thsfrjlhook fets ofi-'Epicures's opinion about happivefs with a
great dial of rhercric The y^cc???^ overthrows it. "The third rc^
prefents the St.:ic's opinion. And thefowrth confutes it. 1l he fifth
r«prefcntr, and afferts the Peripatetic's opinion, which had been
as cafily overthrown as any of them. And this is all you are
to expc6\ here, without one word of God, tlie fjijoyment of
him, or any thing of that kind, which favours of ii life after this.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 117

Seneca writes again a book dt Vita Beata confiftirg of thirty-ivo
chapters. Here we may find loniewhat polTibly. And indeed if
one (hould hear him (late the qaeflion, as he does in his ieccr.d
chapter he would expect feme great mutters frons hin>. Quara^
mus quid optime faBum fit, non quid ufuatijjimuin : Et quid nos
in ppjfeffione felicitaiis attrn(Z conjlitnat , non quid vulgo, verita'-
tis pejji'nio interpreii, probatum Jit, Fulgns auUm tain chlamy-
dates, quam coronam voco* • What may we not now expect?
But after this, I aflure you, you are to icok for no m.ore words
about eternity, nor any thing more, but a jejune difcourfc ia
pretty fentences, about the Stoic's cpinicn, reprefenting that a
man would be happy, if his psffions were exiln(5l, and he wa&
perfc6\ly pleafed with the condition he is in, be it what it wiii.
Now after this, who can dream that nature s light is fufHcient
to fatisfy here ? Is every m.an able to diuover thai which phiio-
phcrs, the greateft of them, after the greattfl application, failed
ib fignally about, that fcarcely any of them came near it, and
none of them reached it ?

5. Nor will it appear flrange, that the Ueaihen philofo-
phers of cid (hould be io much at a lofs zhoul future happinejs,
to any one who confiders how difhcult, if not impofhbie ii mult
be for any, who rejeds revelation, and betakes himielf to the
mere li^ht of nature, to arrive at the wifhed for, and neceffary
affurance of eternal felicity after this life, even at this prefcnt
time, after all the great improvements, which the rational
proofs of a future fiate have obtained, fince Chriftianity pre-
vailed in the world. If nature's light, now under its higleil
improvements, proves unable to aftord full aflurance, and fiill
leaves us to fiu6\uate in uncertainty about future happinefs ;
no wonder that they fhould be in the dark, who were Itrangcrs
to thefe improvements.

That the arguments for a future fiate, (ince Chrifiianity ob-
tained, have received a vaft improvem.ent from ChriTjian divines
and philofophers, cannot mcdeflly be denied. The perform-
ances of Plato and Cicero, on this point, Vihich were the beil
among the ancients, are, when compared with our iate Chriftian
writers, but like the trifles of a boy at fchcol, or the rude ef-

fays

* « Let us inquire what is heft to be done, and not wlias i* n. -fl
" common; and what puts us in polTeiiicn of eternal felicity, and ikvc
'* what is approved by the vulgar,— ~ihe v^oril jodges of iruth. Ey the
"* vulgar I mean the rich and great nx^n> a* well as the ir.ob."

ii8 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. vi.

fays of a novice, in comparifon to the moft elaborate anc|
complete peiformances of the greateft mafters ; if they bear even
the lame proportion. He who knows not this, knows nothing
in thele n.atters. Yea, to that degree have they improven
t'fiofe arguments, that it is utterly impoffible for any man, who
gives all their reafons for the continuance ef the foul after
death, with their anfwers to the trifling pretences of the oppo-
fers of this conciufion, a fair hearing and due confideration, to
acquiefce rationally in the contrary afTertion of atheijh and
mortal deifts ; or not to favour, at Icafl this opinion, as what
is highly probable, if not abfolutely certain.

But after all, if v/e are left to feek affurarfce of this from the
unaffifled light of nature, that certainly God has provided for,
and will aiiually bejlow upon man, and more tjpecially man who
is now a /inner f future and eternal felicity ^ we will find our-
felves plunged into inextricable difficulties, out of which the
light of nature will find it very difficult, if not impoffible to ex-x
tricate us. It is one thing to be perfuaded of the future fepa-
rate fubfiftence of our fouls after death, and another to know
in what condition they ffiall be ; and yet more to be alTuredj
that after death our fouls fiall he poffeffed oj eternal happinefs.
It is precifeiy about this iaft point that we are now to fpeak. 1 he
arguments drawn from nature's light will fcarce fix us in the
ileady perfuafion of future and eternal felicity. There is a
great odds betwixt our knowledge of future puniihw ents, and
the grounds whereby ue are led to it, and our perfuafion of fu-
ture and eternal rewards. Upon inquiry the like reafons
will not be found for both. Our notices about eternal rewards,
when the promifes of it contained in the fcriptures are fet afide,
will be found liable to many obje6\ions, hardly to be folved by
the mere light of nature, which do not fo much afTedl the
proofs advanced for future puniffiments. Befides, fince the en-
trance of fin, its univerfai prevalence in the world, and the
confequenccs following upon it, have fo long benighted man,
as to any knowledge that he otherwife might have had about
eternal happinefs, that now it will be found a matter of the ut-
mofi: difficulty, if not a plain impoffibility, for him to reach
afTurance of eternal felicity by the mere light of nature, how-
ever improven.

The pleas drawn from the kolinefs and jn/itce of God, fay
much for the certain punilhment, after thirs life, of many noto-
rious ofFenders, who have wholly efcaped punilhment here ;

' ' ■ efpccially

PRINCIPLES OF TFIE MODERN DEISTS, 119

cfpecially as they are ftrengthened by other collateral confider-
ations clearing and enforcing them.

But, whether the pleas for future and eternal rewards, from
*he juflice and goodnefs of God, on the one hand ; and the lufFer-
ings of perfons really guilty of fin, but in comparifon of others
virtuous, on the other ; will with equal firmnefs conclude,
that God is obliged to, or certainly wiil^ reward xhch imperje^
virtue, and compenfate their fufFerings, may, and perhaps not
without reafon, be queftioned.

That it is congruous that virtue fhould be rewarded, may
perhaps eafily be granted. But what that reward is, which it
may from divine juftice or bounty claim, it will not be eafy for
us to determine, if we have no other guide than the mere light
©f nature. The man who perfectly performs his duty is fecured
againft: the fears of punifhment, and has reafon to reft fully
affured of God's acceptance and approbation of what is every
way agreeable to his will. He has a perfect inward calm in
his own confcience, is difturbed with no challenges, and has
the fatisfa6lion and inward complacency, refulting fiom his
having acquitted himfelf according to his duty : His confcience
affures him he has done nothing to provoke God to withdraw
favours already given, or to withhold further favours. And
though he cannot eafily fee reafon to think God obliged, either
to continue what he freely gave, or accumulate further eiFecls
of bounty upon him, or to protra6l his happinefs to eternity ;
yet he has the fatisfa6tion of knowing, that he hath not ren-
dered him.felf unworthy of any favour. This reward is the
neceffary and unavoidable confequence of perfeSI obedience.

But this comes not up to the point. That which the light of
nature muft affure us of is. That virtuous men, on account of
their virtue, may claim and expedl, befides this, a further re-
ward, and that of no lefs confequence than eternal felicity.
Now, if I miflake it not, when the promife of God, which
cannot be known without revelation, is laid afide, the mere
light of nature will find it difficult to fix upon folid grounds,
for any affurance as to this. Many thorny difficulties muft be
got through. Not a few perplexing queOions mull be folved.
If it is faid that the juftice of God neceffarily obliges him, he-
fides that reward nece(r:irily refulting from perfect obedience,
(of which above), further to recoiT.peiiCf , even the moft exa^l
and perfedl performance of our duty, antecedetatly to any pro-
mife given to tliat efFed, with future and eternal felicity ; it

may

I20 AN INQUIRY INTO THE tnxT. vu

may be inquired, How It fhail be made appear that virtiie, fup-
pofe it to be as prrfsct as you will, can be faid to r/ieritf and to
merit (o great a reward ? May not God, without injuftice, turn
to nothing an innocent creature ? Sure I am, no mean nor in-
competent juJges have thought fo *. Where is the injuftice
of removing or taking away what he freely gave, and did not
promife to continue ? Is it modeft or fafe fur us, u-Ithout the
mod convincing evidences of the inconfiOency of the thing, to
litnit the power of Go-d, or put a cannot on the Almighty ?
And does not the very pollibility of the annihilation of an in-
nocent creature, in a confillency with juftice, though God, for
other rcafons, (bould never think fit to do it, entirely enervate
this plea? If God, without injuftice may takeaway ih^ being
of an innocent creature, how is it poOTible to evince, that in
juflice, he mull reward it with eternal kappinefs? Again, if we
iTiay, for our virtue, claim eternal felicity, as due in juflice,
may it not be inquired. What exercifc of virtue, — for how long
a tim^ contiued,— is f iffici ent to give us this title to eternal re-
wards ? If the bounty and goodne/s of God is infixed on, as
the ground of this claim, the plea of juOice feems to be defert-
ed. And here again it may be inquired, Whether the goodnefs
of God is necefl'ary in its egrefs? Whether the bounty of God
ought not to be underflood to refpe£i thofe thinrs which are
abfolutely at the giver's pleafure to i^rant or withhold ? Whe-
ther, in fach matters, we can be affured that bounty will give
us this or th.U, which, though we want, is not in jufiice due,
nor fecured to us by any promiie ? Further, it may be inquired
how far maft goodnefs extend itfelf as to rewards? Is it not
iuppofable, that it may iXo"^ (horl of eternal felicity, and think
a lefs reward fjfHcient? Of io great weight have thefe, and
the like difficulties appeared to not a {cw, and thofe not of the
more ftupid fort of mankind, that they have not doubted to af-
fert boldly, thit even innocent man, without revelation, and a
poll five promife, could never be afl\ired of eternal rewards.
And how the liglit of nature can dlfcngagc us from the[e difficul-
ties, were man perfe611y innocent, I do not well underfiand.

But whatever there is of this, the entrance, of fin and the con-
fidcration of man's cafe as involved in guilti has caii us upon

new

* See the Excellency of Theology, Src. by T- H. R. Boil, pag. 25,
26, 27, &c. and Confiti. about the Recon. of Reafon and Rel. by T*
£. pag. 21, 22.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN bEISTS. 12 i

new and yet greater difficulties. From this prefent cotidition
therein we find all mankind without exception involved, a
whole (hoal of difficulties emerge, never, I am afraid, to be re«
moved by unajjijied reafon*

Now, it may be inquired, what obedience is it that can en-
title us to eternal felicity? If none fave that which is perfeB will
ferve, who lliall be the jjetter for this reward? Who can pretend
to this perfe£^ or finlefs obedience? \i imperfeS obedience may^
how (liall we be fare of this? How fhall he who deferves punllh*
ment, claim, demand and expecl reward, a great reward, yeaj
the greatell reward, — -eternal happinefs? If the goodnefs of God
is pleaded, and it is faid, that though we cannot expe6l inJiriSI
jujlice to have oiir imptrjeB obedience rewarded ; yet we may hope
it from the bounty of God? Befides, what was above moved
agalnft this, in a more plaufible cafe^ when we were fpeakingof
innocent man, it may be further inquired, whether, though infi-
nite bounty might deal thus gracioufly with man, if he were
perfeBly righteous, it may npt yet withhold its favours, or at
lea^l {{op (bort of eternal felicity, with the befl among finners?
Again, what degree of imperfedion is it that will prejudge this
claim? What may confifl with it ? Who is good in that fcnfe,
which is neceflary to qualify him for this expedition? Is there any
fuch perfon exiftent? What way (hall we be fure of this ? Is it to
bemeafured by outward a6lions only, or are inward principles and
alms to come in confideration ? Who can know thefe fave God ?
If it be faid, we can know ourfelves to be fuch : I anfwer, how
Ihall we maintain any confidence of future* nay eternal re-
wards, while confcience tells that we deferve puniftirnent ?
What if by the mere light of nature we can never be alTured of
forglvenefs? How (hall we then by it be fure of eternal re-
wards? If we are not rewarded here, how can we know but that
it has been for our fins that good things have been withheld froin-
us? May not thisbe prefumed to be the confequcnceof our known
fins, or more covert evils, which felf-love has made us overlook?
If we fuffer, yet do we fufFer more than our fins deferve, or even
fo much ? If we think fo, will we be fuftaincd competent judges
of the quality of offences, and their demerit, which are done
agalnfi; God, efpecially when we are the aftors ? To whom
does it belong to judge ? If ye meet with fome part, for ye can
never prove it is all, of demerit or deferved punKbmcnt of your
fins here, will this conclude that ye fl:iall be exempted frond
fuffering what further God may in jufticc think due to them, and

P you

121 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. vf.

you on their account hereafter? What fecurlty have ye that ye
fViall efcape with what is intli(5>ed on you here ? And not only
fo, but inftead of meeting with m hat ye further deferve, obtaiis
rewards which ye dare fcarce'y fav ye deferve ? If God fpare at
prefent a noted offender, who cannot without violence to rea-
fon be fuppofed a fubjett meet for pardon or for a reward, and
referve the whole puniO.ment due to his crincs, to the other
world ; but in the mcari uhile, fees meet to \ni\\&. prefent pu-
i^iOnment on thee, though lefs criminal, perhaps to convince
the world, (hat e^ven Icfler cfterder«^ fhall not efcape ,* if, 1 fay,
he deal thus, is there no way for clearing his juflice, but by con-
ferring eternal happinefs on thee ? ^A by, if he \iiih6t what
further puniflimcnt is due to thee, in exacl proportion to thy lefs
atrocious crimes; and punilh the other with evils pi'oportioned
to his more atrocious crimes, and make him up by the feverity
of the Oroke for the delay of the puniflimetit ; if, I fay, thus he
do, I challenge any man to tell me where the Injufticc lies?
And may not the like be faid as to any other virtuous perfon,
or whom thou fuppofeft to be fuch, who meets with itlierings ?

Nor do lefs perplexing difficulties attend ihofe other pleas for
future happinefs to man, at leafl, in his prefent condition ;
which are drawn from God creating us capable of future hap-
pinefs, implanting defires, and giving us gufls of it: All which
would be given in vain, if there was no happinefs defigned for
man after time.

But how by this we can be fecar^d of eternal happinefs, I
do not well fee. Nor do I underftand how the difficulties which
may be moved againft this, can be refolved. It may be in^
quired, \'\'hether this defire of happinefs, faid to be implanted
in our natures, is really any thiiig dif'indt from that natural
tendency of the c/ealure to Its own perfe61ion and prefervation,
which belongs to the being of every creature, with fuch difference
as to degrees and the manner, as their refped^Ive natures re-
quire ? If it is no more than this, it muft be allowed effential
to every rational creature : And if every rational creature has
an effential attribute, which infers an obligation on God to
provide for it eternal happinefs, and put it in poflefhon of this
felicity, If no fault interv. ne, doth it noT thence neceffarily,
follow, that God cannot poihbiy, without injufllce, turn to no--
thing any Innocent rational creature ; nay, nor create any one,
which it Is pofhble for him again to annihilate without injuf-
tice ? For if we Ihould fuppofc^ it poflible for God to do fo,

and

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 123

^nd thus without injuftice frufirate this defire, where is the force

gf the argument ? And is it not a little bold to limit God thus ?

J need not enter into the debate, Whether there is any fup-

pofablecafe, wherein infinite wifdom may think it fit to do fo V

That difpute i's a little too nice: For on the one hand, it will

be hard for us to determine it pofitively, that infinite wifdom

mud, in any cafe we can fuppofe, think it fit to deftroy or turn

to nothing an innocent creature ; and on the other hand, it is

no lefs ra(h to adert, that our not knowing any cafe, proves

ihat really there is none fuch known to the only wife God.

Befides, if we allow it only pcffible, in a confiftency with juf-

tice and veracity, for God to do it, 1 am afraid the argument

has loft its force. Further, it may be inquired, Whether the

rational creature can in duty defire an eternal continuation in

"feeing, otherwife than with the deepefi: fubmiffion to the fovereiga

pleafure of God, where he has given no pofitive promife? If fub-

miffion belongs to it, ^11 certainty evanifhes, and we muft look

clfewhere for aflTurance of eternal happinefs. A defire of it, if

God fee meet to give it, can never prove that certainly he wll

give it. If it is faid, that the creature without fubmiffion or fault

may in fift upon and claim eternal happinefs; I do not fee how

this can be proven.

But again, do not thefe defires refpefi the whole man, con-*
lining of foul and body? Doth not death diflblve the m.an ?
Are not thefe defires apparently frufirated ? How will the light
of nature certainly infer from thofe defires, gufis, 6cc. that the
whole man thall have eternal felicity, while we fee the man
daily defiroyed by death? Can this be underftood without reve-
lation ? Does the light of nature teach us that there will be a
refurredion ? I grant, that without ihe fuppofal of a future cx"
iftance, we cannot eafily underlland what end there was wor-
thy of God for making fuch a noble creature as man : But
while we fee man, on th? other hand, daily deftroyed by death,
and know nothing of the refurre(Stion of the body, which is
the cafe of all thofe v/ho reject revelation, we ihall not know
"vv'hat to conclude, but muft be toflfed in cur own minds, and be
at lofs how to reconcile thofe feeming inconfirtencies : Which
gave a great man occafion to obferve, ** That there can be no
*' reconciliation of the do61rine of future rewards and punifh-
** ments, to be righteouily adminifiered upon a fuppofition of
^' the feparate everlafiing fubfiitence of the foul only *•'* And

f^V

♦ Dr. Qwen 02 Heb. vu ver, i, 2. Vol, 3, pag. au

124 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. vi.

for proof of this, he Infifls on feveral weighty confiderations,
which I cannot tranfcribe.

But, fhould we give up all this, Will this defire of happinef?
prove that God defjgned it for man, whether he carried himfelf
well or not ? If it prove not that finful man may be happy, or
that eternal happinefs is defigned for man, M'ho is now a finnerj
what are we the better for it ? Are we not all more or lefs guil-
ty ? What will it help us, that we were originally def.gned
for, and made capable of future felicity, if we are now under
an incapacity of obtaining it ? Do we not find that we have
fallen fliort of perfect obedience? And can thofe defires afl'ure
us that God will pardon, yea reward us, and that with the
greateft bieffing which innocent man was capable of? Moreover,
before we end this difcourfe, I hope to make it appear, that by
the -mere, light ofvaturf^ no man can affuredly know ihzX fin fhall
be pardoned; and if (oy it is vain to pretend, that we can be
allured of eternal felicity in our prefent condition. They who
have finned Icfs and fuffered more in this life, fliall not be fo
fcverely punifhed in that which is to come, as they who have
finned more grievoufly and efcaped without puniihrnent here,
this reafon aitures us of: But it can fcarcely fo much as afford
us a colourable pica for eternal rewards, to any virtue that is
ftained with the leaf! fin. The fcriptuies rrake mention of a
happinefs promifed to innocent man upon perfect obedience ;
and of faivation to guilty man upon faith in Jesus Christ.
Befide thefe two I know no third foit. As to the laO, the
light of nature is entirely filent, as we fliall fee afterwards.
Whether it can alone prove the firft is a queflion : But that
man in his prefent condition cannot be better for it, is out of
queflion.

6. Were it granted that thefe arguments are ccnclnCve, yet
the matter would be very little mended : For it is ceitain, that
thefe arguments are too thin to be dilcerned by the dim eyes of
the generality, even though they had tutors who would be at
pains to inftrudt them. Yea, I fear that they rather beget fuf-
picions than firm perfuafions in the minds of philofcphers. They
are of that jort, which rather fiience than fatisfy. Arguments
ab abfurdo, rather force the niind to afi'ent, than determ.ine it
cheerfully to acquiefcc in the truth as difcovered. Other de-
monfirations carry along with them a difcovcry of the nature
of the thing, which fatisfies it in fome meafurc. Hence they
have a force, not only to engage, but to keep the foul fiesdy

in

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 125

in its adherence to truth ; but thefe oblige to implicit belief as
it were, and therefore the mind eafily wavers and lofes view of
truth ; and Is no longer firm, than it is forced to be fo, by a
prefent view of the argument. If learned men were always ob-
fcrvant of their own minds, and as ingenuous as the Auditor is
in Cicero, in his acknowledgment about the force of Plato's
arguments for xht immortality of the foul*, they would make
fome fuch acknowledgment as he does. After he has told, that he
has read oftener than once Plato's arguments for the immortali"
ty of the foul t which Cicero had recommended in the foregoing
difcourfe as the beft that were to be expected, he adds, " Sed
** nefcio quomodo, dum lego a/fentior: cum pojui librim, & me<-
** cum ipfe de immortaliiate animorum capi cogitare, afftntio am-
** nis ilia elal?iturf," In like manner might others fay, When
I pore upon thofe arguments I affent ; but when I begin to look
on the matter, I find there arifes not fuch a light from them,
as is able to keep the mind fiea^y in its affent. More efpecially
will it be found fo, if we look not only to the matter, but to
the difficulties which offer about it. Yet this fteadlnefs is of ab-
folute neceifity in this cafe, fince a refpecl to this mufl be fbp-
pofed always prevalent, in order to influence to a Heady pur-
fuit. The learned Sir Matthew Hale obferves, that, ** It is ve-
** ry true, that partly by univerfal tradition, derived probably
** from the common parent of mankind, partly by fome glim-
** merings of natural light in the natural confciences, in iome,
** at leaflf, of the Heathen, there {ccfcitd to be fome common
** perfuafion of a future ftate of rew^ards and punilhments. But
** firft it was weak and dim, and even in many of the wifcft of
** them overborn ; fo that it was rather a fufplcion, or at moft,
** a weak and faint perfuafion, than a ftrong and firm convic-
** tion : And hence it became very unoperative and ineffectual
•* to the mofl of them, when they had greateft need of it ;
** namely, upon imminent or incumbent temporal eviisof great
** preffure. But, where the impreifiion was firmed among them,
*' yet ftill they were in the dark what it was."

7. It is further to be confidered, that it is not the general per*
fuafion that there is a ftate of future happinefs and mifery, which

caa

* Cicero Tuf. Queft. Lib. r.

+ " But I know not how it happens, that althc-gh I affent to him
** as long as I am reading, yet when I have laid down the book, and
" begun to think with myfelf of the immortality of the foul, all that
«< aflent vanilhes." •

}26 AN INdUIRY INTO THE chap, vi,

can avail *; but there iriun be a difcovery of that happlnefs in its
nature, or wherein it confifts; its excellency and fuitablenefs, to
engage man to look on it as his chief good, purfue it as fuch,
perievere in the purfalt over all oppolition, and forego other
things, which he fees and knows the prefent pleafure and advan-
tage of, for it. Now, fuch a view the light of nature can never ra»
tionally be pretended to be able to give : If it is, let the pretender
lliew us where, and by whom fuch an account has been given and
verified ; or let him do it himfelf. And if this is not dene, as it
never has, and I fear not to fay never can be done ; it wou!d not
mend the matter, though we iliculd forego all that has been
abovefaid, ^as vv'as above infinuated), which yet we fee no ne-
ceffity of doing.

8. I might here tell how faintly the deifts ufe to fpeak upon
this head. Though upon occafion, they can be pofitive; yet at
other times they fpeak modelUy about the being of a future flate
of happinefs.and tell us,** That rewards and punifliments hereaf-
** ter, though the nofionofthem has not been univerfally receiv-
** ed, the Heathens difagreeing abo'jt the doctrine of the immor-
** tality of the foul, may yet be granted to feem reafonable, becaufe
** they are deduced from the doctrine of providence,— and that
** they may be granted parts of natural religion, becaufe the wifefl
** men have inclined to hold them amongft the Heathen f ,"^c«
and now do in all opinions. And as they feem not over certain
as to the being of future rewards and puniQ^rr.ents, fo they plainly*
own they can give no account what they are. ** Qua vera, qualist
** quanta^ &:c. k^c vitajtcunda vd mors Juerit ob deftBum condi"
'* tionum ad veritrJus iflius conformationtm pojluldtaruniy fciri
•* nequit," i^ys the learned Herbert %,

CHAB,

* Herbert de Veritate, y^g. 59.

+ Orac. of Reafon, png. 201.

% De Ver. pag. 57. ^ Alihi f^phts, — " "But what, of what kind«
« and how great, thiR fecond lik or death fnall be, can not be known,
«« for want of thofe CvirJitions that are required for th« confirmation ti
« the truth of it."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 127

CHAP. VII.

Natures Light affords not a fufficient Rule of Duty* Its In"

jufficicncy hence injeried,

THERE is certainly no other way of attaining bappinefs, than
by pleafmg God. Happineis is no other way to be had, than
from him, and no other way can we reaionably expert it from
him, h.\Xm\.\iZ 'W2Ly oi duty OT obedience. Obedience nnjft either
be with refpecl to thele things wl ich in mediatelv regard the
honour of the Deity, or- in other things. The injifficitncy 9] na^
tural religion as to wor[hip, has been above den:ohOrated. i hat
it is wanting as to the latter, viz. thefe duties which we cal-
led, for diftinclion's fake, dudes oj moral obedience, is now to
be proven. That man is fubjett to Gcd, and fo in every
thing obh'ged to regulate himfelf according to the prefcriptidn
of God, has been above aflerted, and the grounds of this af"
fertion, have been more than infmuated. Now if nature's
light is not able to afford a complete directory as to the whole
of man's conduct, in fo far as the Deity is concerned, it can
never be allowed fufficient to condu6t man in religion, and lead
him to eternal happnefs : While it leaves him at a lofs as to luffi-
cient rules for univerfal virtue, which even deifts own to be the
principal way of ferving God and obtaining happinefs. It is
one of the principal things to which this is to be afcribed, and
whereon man's hopes muil: reafonably be fuppofed to lean, if he is
left to the mere conduft of the light of nature. Now tie infuffi-
ciency of nature's light in this point will be fully made appear,
from the enfuin^- confiderations; fome of which are excellently
difcourfed by the ingenious Mr. Lock in his Reajonablenefs of
Ch'njiianityy as delivered in the Scripture*. If be had done as
well in other points as in this, he had deferved the thanks of all
that willi well to Chriftianity : But fo far as he follows the truth
we fhall take his affillanre, and improve fome of his noiions, ad-
ding fuch others^ as are by him omitted, which may be judged of
ufe to the cafe in hand.

I. Then we obferve, that no man left to the conduct merely of
nature's light, hasoiteredus a complete body of morality* Some
parts of our duty aire pretty fully taught by philofopheis and poli-
ticians

* Reaf. of Chrift. pag. 267.

128 AN INCiUiRY INTO THE cWap. vii*

ticians. *' So much virtue as was rieceffary to hold focleties toge^
** ther, and to contribute to the quiet of governments, the civil
** laws of commonwealths taught, and forced upon men that liv-
** ed under magiftrates. But thefe laws, being for the moft part
** made by fuch, who have no other aims but their own power,
'* reached no further than thofe things that would ferve to tie men
** together in fubjedlion ; or at mort, were dire(?tly to conduce
'* to the profperity and temporal happinefs of any people. But
** natural religion in its full extent, was no where, that 1 know
•* of, taken care of by the force of natural rcafon. It ihould feem
** by the little that hitherto has been done in it, that it is too hard
" a thing for unaflifted reafon to eftablilh morality in all its
** parts, upon its true foundations, with a clear and convincing
** light*. ' Some pirts have been noticed, and others quiteomittcd.
A complete fyflem of morality in its whole extent has never beeri
attempted by the mere light of nature, much lefs completed.

2. To gather together the fcattered rules that are to be met
with in the writings of morality , and v/eave thefe ihrcds into a
competent body of morality ^ in fofaras even the particular di-
rection of any one man would require, is a work of that im-
menfe labour, and requires fo much learning, ftudy and atten-
tion, that it has never been performed, and never like to be per-
formed, and quite furmounts the capacity of mod, if not of
any one man. So that neither is there a complete body of mo-
rality given us by any one. Nor is it ever likely to be colle6ted
from thofe who have given us parcels of it.

3. Were all the moral directions of the ancient fages collect-
ed, it would not be a fyftem that would be any way ufeful to
the body of mankind. It would confiH for moft part of enig-
matical, dark and involved fentences, that would need a com-
n.entary too long for vulgar leifure to perufe, to make them in-
telligible. Any one that is in the leaft meafure acquainted
with the writings of the philofophers will not queftion this. Of
what ufe would it be to read fuch morality as that of Pythagoras,
whofe famed fentences were, ** Poake not in the fire with a
** fword ; ftride not over the beam of a balance; fit not upon
** a bufhel ; eat not the heart ; take up your burthen with help;
** eafe yourfelf of it with afliftance ; have always your bed-
** clothes well tucked up ; carry not the image of God about

** you

* Rcaf. of Chrift. pag. 26S.

+ Diog. Laeit. Life ©f Pythagoras.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 129

** you in a ring," &c. Was this like to be of any ufe to man^
kind ? No furely, fome of them indeed fpeak more plain, fome
of them lefs fo ; but none of them fufficiently plain to be un-
derftood by the vulgar.

4. Further, were this colle6tion made, and, upon other ac-
counts, unexceptionable ; yet it would not be fufficiently full to
be an univerfal dire6\ory. For, i. Many important duties would
be wanting. Self-denial, that confifts in a mean opinion of our-
ielves, and leads to a fubmitting, and pafling from all our mod
valuable concerns, when the honour of God requires it, is the
fundamental duty of all religion, that which is of abfolute neceffity
to a due acknowledgment of man's fubje6^Ion and dependence ;
and yet we {hall find a deep filence in all the moralifts about it»
Which defect is the more confiderable, that the whole of our
apoftacy is eafily reducible to this one point, ^« endeavour tofubje^
the will, concerns and pleasures of God to our own* And no adl
of obedience to him, can, without grofs ignorance of his nature^
and unacquaintednefs with the extent of his knowledge, be pre-
sumed acceptable, which flows not from fuch a principle of felf-
denial, as fixedly prefer the concerns of God's glory to all other
things. Again, what duty have wc more need of, than that
which is employed in forgiving enemies, nay in loving them? We
have frequent occalions for it. If we are not acquainted that this
is duty, wc muft frequently run into the oppofite (in. But
where is this taught among the Heathens? Further, where fhall
we find a direcSlory as to the inward frame and aSings of our
rfiinds, guiding us how to regulate our thoughts, our defigns?
Some notice is taken of the outward behaviour; but little of that
which is ihefpring of it. Where is there a rule for the dire6^ion
of our thoughts as to objeHs about which they fhould be employed,
or as to the manner wherein they arc to be converfant about them ?
Thefe things are of great importance, and yet by very far out
of the ken of unenlightened nature. Divine and Spiritual
things were little known, and lefs thought of by philofophers.
2. As this fyflem would be defe6\ive as to particular duties of
the highefl importance ,* io it would be quite defeiSlivc as fo the
grounds of thofe duties which are enjoined. It is not enough to
recommend duty, that it is ufeful to us, or the focieties we Jive
in. When we a£^ only on fuch grounds, we fliew fome regard
to ourfelves, and the focieties whereof we are members ; but
none to God. Where are thefe cleared to be the laws of God'^
Who is he that prefTcs obedience upon the confciences of men,

Q^ from

t30 AN INQ,UIRY INTO THE chap, vn,

from the confideration of God's authority Oamped upon thefe
laws he prefcribes? And yet without this, you may call it v/hat
you will; obedience you cannot call it. It is well obferved by
Mr. Lock, — '^ Thofe juft meafures of right and wrong, which
** neceffity had any where introduced, the civil laws prefcrib-
** ed, or philofophers recommended, flood not on their true
** foundations. They were looked on as bonds of fociety, and
** conveniencies of cotiiinon life, and laudable practices :~ But
** where was it that their obligation was thoroughly known,
** and allowed, and they received as precepts of a law, of the
*' higheft law, the law of nature ? That could not be without
** the clear knowledge of the lawgiver, and the great rewards
** or punilhments for thofe that would not, or wouid obey. But
** the religion of the Heathens, as was before obferved, little
" concerned itfelf in their morals. The prieOs that delivered
** the oracles of heaven, and pretended to fpeak from the gods,
** fpoke little of virtue and a good life. Av.d on the other fide^
** the philofophers who fpoke from reafon, made not much
*t mention of the Deity in their ethicks *."

5. Not only would this rule be defedive and lame ; but it
would be found corrupt and pernicious. For, i. Inflead of
leading them in the luayj it would in many inftances lead them
afidi* We Ihould have here Epi6letus binding you to tempo-
rize, and *' worfiiip the gods after the failiion of your coun-
** try f." You (liould find Pythagoras *' forbidding you to
'* pray for yourfelf to God 4," becaufe you know not what is
convenient. You (liould find Ariftctle and Cicero commending
revenge as a duty. The latter you fl ould find defending Bru-
tus and Cafiius for killing Ceiar, and thereby authorizing the
murder of any magifirates, if the adiors can but perfuade them-
felves that they are tyrants. Had we nothing to condu6^ us ia
our obedience and loyalty, but ihe fentiments of philofophers,
no prince could be fecurc either of his life or dignity. You
fhould find Cicero pleading \or felf -murder, from which he can
never be freed, nor can any tolerable apology be made for him-
Herein he was fecondcd by Brutus, Cato, Caffius, Seneca ard
others innumerable. Many of them pra(Siifed it ; others ap-
plauded of their fentiments in this matter. You may find a

large

* Reafonr\hIcnefsof Chiiftianlty, pa^. 27S.

+ Epia, Enchirid. Cap. 38.

% Di»g. Laert. Vit, Pyth. pag. 7.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS.

^3^

large account in Mr. VfodwoVs Jpology for the Pkilofophical Per"
formances of Cicero prefixed to Mr. Parker's tranilation of his
book de Finifus* And you may find the delfts juftifying this in
the preface to the Oracles of Reaforif wherein Blount's killing
of himfelf is juftlfied. Of the fame mind was Seneca, who ex-
prefsly advifes the pia6^ice of it. We fhould here find cuflomary
fwearing commended* ^ if not by their precepts, yet by the examples
of the heji moratifts,V\2iXoj Socrates, and Seneca. In whom numer-
ous inftances of oaths by Jupiter, Hercules, and by beafts, do oc-
cur. In the fame way we fhould find ufinatural luji recommended'^'*
Ariftotle pra6iifed it. And Socrates is foully belied, if he loved
TiOt the fame vice. Whence elfe could Socratici Cznadicoweto
be a proverb in Juvenal's days. Pride and ftf-efeem were among
their virtues* Which gives me occafion to obferve, that this
one thing overturned their whole morality. Epl6\etus, one of
the bcft of all their moralifts, tells us, *' That the conftitution
** and image of a philofopher is to expe6l good, as well as fear
** evil, only from himfelf |." Seneca urgeth this every where—
** Sapiens tarn, cequo animo omnia apud alios videt^ contemnitque^
** quam ]\xmitx : Et hoc fe magi i fufpicit, quod Jupher uti iliis
** non poeJ?f fapiens non vulf^,^' And again, ** EJl aliquid
** quo fapiens anteced.it Deum. Ille nafura beneficio, non fuo,
** fapiens eft ||. Incomptus vir fit externis 3* infuperabiliSy mtra-
** torque tantum fui**.'' ** Friae and fcif-eftcem was adifeafe
** epidemical amongft them, and feems wholly incurable by any
** notions that they had. Some arrived to th.it impudence to
'* compare themfelves with, nay, prefer themfelves before their
*^ own gods. It was either a horrible folly to deify what they
** poftponed to their own felf-eftimation, or elfe it was aflupen-

dous

* Seneca de Ira, Lib. ?, Cap. 15,

+ Diog, Laert- Vita Ariit. Lib- 5. pag. 323.

J Epid. Each. Cap. 27.

^ Seneca, Epift. 73. — <' A wife man beholds and defpifes all things
« that he f^es in the poffeffion of others, with as eafy a mind as Ju-
«< piter himfelf. And in this he admires hirafelf the mere, that Jupi-
« ter cannot ufe thofe things which he defpifes, whereas the wife
" man can ufe them, but will not."

II Id. Epill. 53. — " There is fomething in which a wife man excels
" Godi as God is wife by the benefit of his nature, and not by his
«■ o^vn."

** Id. de njita Beatay Cap. 8. — " Let a man be incorruptible and
" incorrigible be external things, and an adtnirc^r of himfelf alone, '

132 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE qhap. vn,

** dous efFefl of their pride to prefer themfelves to the godo
** that they worihipped. Never any man amongrt them propo-
*' fed the honour of their gods as the chief end of their ac-
*' tions, nor fo much as dreamed of any fuch thing ,* it is evident
** that the beft of them in their beft a6iion5 refledled ftill back to
** themfehes, and determinated there, defigning to fet up a pil-
** lar to their own fame*." That known fentence of Cicero^
who fpeaks out plainly what others thought, will juftlfy this fc-
vere cenfure given by this worthy perfon, Fuii plane virius
honoran : Nee virtutis uUa alia merces f. Were it needful, 1
might write volumes to this purpofe, that would make one's flefh
tremble to read. They who defire fali=>fa6\ion in this point,
may find it largely done by others. I fl)all conclude this firft
evidence of the corruption of their morality ^ with this general
reiiedtion of the learned Amyrald in his Treatife of Religions ;
** Scarce can there be found any commonwealth amongft thofe,
** which have been efteemed the beft governed, in which fome
*' grand and fignal vice has not been excufed, or permitted, or
" even fometimes recommended by public laws J. 2. Not on-
ly did they enjoin wron^ things ; but they enjoined what was
right to a zurong endy yea even their beft things, as we heard
jufl now, aimed at their own honour. We have heard Cicero
to this purpofe telling plainly that honour zoas their ai?n» Or
what the poet faid of Brutus killing his own fons when they in-
tended the overthrow of the liberty of their country,

Ficit a?nor putrice laudumqiie immenfa cupido J,

is the moft that can be pleaded for moft of them. Others are
plainly blafphemous, as we have heard from Seneca, defigning
to be above God by his virtue. At this rate this philofopher
talks very oft : *' Let philofophy," fays he," miniftcr this to me,
** that it render me equal to God \\." To the maintenance of
this, their notions about the foul of man contributed much ;
Hiling it a piece dipt from God 'ATroo-Traa^//,^ ra 0£t, or a part of

God,

* Sir Char, WoUeley's Reafon. of Scriptare Belief, pag. ii8.

+ Cicero de Amicina. — " Virtue certainly will have honour, nor is
**■ there any other reward of virtue."

X See indanccs to this purpofe in a dilcourfe of Moral Virtue, and
its dia^:rence frcm Grace, pag. 225-

§ " The love of his country, and his irr.nicnfe defire of praife, over-
« came him.''

Ij Seneca, Epillle 48.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 133

God, tS A/oV Ms^©-, as Epicletus fpeaks. Horace calls it di^
vincK particula aura. Cicero in his Somnium Scip, tells us
what they thought of themfelves, Demn fato te ejfi — " Know
** thyfelf to be a God.'* And accordingly the Indian Brach-
mans vouched themfelves for Gods. And indeed they, who de-
bafed their Gods below men, by their abominable characters of
them, it was no v/onder to find them prefer themfelves to them.
Nor did any run higher this way than Plato. Let i)ny one read
his arguments for the immortality of the foul ^ and if they prove
any thing, they prove it a Gcd» Thus they quite corrupted all
they taught, by direcllng It to wrong ends. 3. This fyO.em
would corrupt us as to the fountain of virtue and its principlt,
teaching us to truft ourfelves, and not depend on God for it.
We have heard fome fpeak to this purpofe already ; and Cicero
may well be allowed to fpeak for the reft. '* A Deo tanium
** rationem habemus : Bonam autem ratLonem aut fion bonam a
** nobis*.'' And a little after, near the clofe of his book, after he
has owned our external advantages of learning to be from God, he
fubjoins — ** Virtutem autem nemo unqumn accepiam Deo retulit,
** nimiruju reBe : Propter virtutem eni??i jure lauda?nur, 6?
** in virtute rede gloriaviur, quod nan contingeret, fi id donum
** a DeOf non a nobis kaberemiisf." Thus we fee how corrupt
they were in this point, and it is here eafily obfervable whence
they were corrupted as to their chief end. He that believes that
he has any thing that is not from God, will have fomewhat aifo
that he will not refer to him, as his chief end. 4. The corrup-
tion of this fyftem, would in this appear, that it would he full
of contraditlions. Here we fhall find nothing but endlefs jaris ;
one condemning as abominable, what another approves and
praifes : Whereby we fhould be led to judge neither riglit, ra-
ther than any of them. A man who, for dlre^S^flon, will be-
take himfelf to the declarations of the philofophers, goes into a
wild wood of uncertainty, and into an eridleis maze, from which

he

* Cicero de Natura Deornra, Lib. 3. P. mini, 173. — " We hare
« only reaton from God, but we have good or bad reafon from cur-
<f felve!5."

i " Ba-t nobody ever acknowledged that he was indebted to God for
" his virtue, and certainly with good reafon ; for we aie juilly pralfed
" on account of our viriue, and we jutUy boaft of it, which could not
" be the cafe, if we had that as a gift from God, and not from our-
« felves."

131 AN INCtUlRY INTO THE chap. vii.

he fliould never get out. Plenty of Inftances, confirming thefe
two iall inentioncd oblervations, might be adduced. If the rea-
der defire them, I iliall refer him to Mr. Lock's Effay on Human
Under jlandingy Book i. Chap, 3. Parag. 9. where he may fee it
has been cuftomary with not a few nations, to expofe their chil-
dren, bury them alive without fcruple, fatten them for the
flaughter, kill them and eat them, and difpatch their aged pa-
rents : yea fome, he will find, have been fo abfurd, as to expecl
paradife as a reward of rtven.ge, and of eating abundance of their
enemies. Whether thefe inftances will anfwer Mr. Lock's pur-
pofe, I difpute not now, I defign not to make myfelf a party
in that controverfy. But I am fure futh fatal mirtakes, as to
what is good and evil, area pregnant evidence of the infufficl-
ency of nature's light to alFoid us a complete rule of duty. If
they, who were left to it, blundered fo Ihamefully in the clear-
eft cafes, how (hall we exped direction, as to thefe that are far
more intricate ?

6. Be this fyftem never fo complete, yet it can never be allow-
ed to be a rule of life to mankind. This I cmnot better fatisfy
rnyfelf upon, than hv tranicribine what the ingenious Mr. Lock
lias excellently difcourfed on t.iis head. '• 1 will fupnofe there
** was a Stoheus in thofe times, who had gathered the moral Jay
** ings from all \}c\t fa;ges of the wor^d. What would this amount
*' to, towards being; a fteady ru'e, a certain tranfcript of a law,
** that we are under ? Did the faying of AriRippus, or Confucius,
./** give it authority ? Was Zeno a lawgiver to mankind? If
' ** not, what he or any other philofopher deli\/ered, was but a
** faying of his* Mankind might hearken to it or reject it as
** they pleafed, or as it fuited their intereft, paffions, principles,
** or humours. They were under no obligation : The opinion
** of this or that philofopher, was of no authority. And if it
** were, you mufl take all he faid under the fame chara61er.
** All his dictates muft go for law, certain and true ; or none of
** them. And then ifvou will take the moral fayings of Epicu-
** rus (many whereof Seneca q"'J0tes with approbation) for pre-
<* cepts of the law of natuie, you mufi take all the rel^ of his
** do6lrine for fu'ch too, or ?Ife his authority ceafes : So no more
*' is to be received from him, or any ol the fagesofold, for parts
** of the law of nature, as carrying with them an obligation to be
** obeyed, but what they prove to be fo. But fuch a body of
** cthicks, proved to be the law nature, from principles or reaion,
** and reachins: all the duties of life, 1 ihiijk no body v/ill fay

" the

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 135

** the world had before our Saviour's time." And I may add, nor
to this day has, by the mere light of nature* ** It is not enough/*
continues he, " that there were up and down fcattered fayings
*' of wife men, conformable to right reafon. The law of nature
** was the law of conveniency too: And it is no wonder thefe
** men of parts, and (tudicus of virtue, (who had occafion to think
" of any particular part of it) (liould, by meditation, light on
** the right, even from the obfervable conveniency and beauty
** of it, without making out its obligation from the true prin-
** ciples of the law of nature, and foundations of morality."
More he adds judicioufly to this purpofe ; but this is enough.
And hence it is plain, that fuch a fyfiem of morality would, if
co]le61ed, at befl be only a collection of problems, which eve-
ry man is left at liberty to canvafs, difpute, or rejc6\ ; nay
more, which every man is obliged to examine as to all its parts,
in fo far as it prefcribes rules to him, and not to receive, but
upon a difcovery of its truth from its proper principles.

7. It is then plain that every man is left to his own reafon to
find out his duty by. He is not to receive it upon any other au-
thority than that of reafon, if revelation is reje<?ted. He muft
find out therefore, in every cafe, what he is to do, and deduce
its obligation from the principles of the law of nature. But who
fees not, that the rnofi: part of men have neither Icifure nor capa-
city for i'uch a work? Meamay think duty eafy to be difcovered
now, when Chrirtianity has cleared it up. But Mr. Lock well
cbferves,** That the flrft knowledge of thofe truths, which have
** been difcovered byChriflian philofophers, or philofophers fince
** Chriftianity prevailed, is owing to revelation ; though asfoon as
** they are heard and coniidered, they are found to be agreeable
** to reafon, and fuch as can by no means be contradicted. Every
** one may obferve a great many truths v.-hich he receives at firH;
*' from others, and readily aficn's to, as confonant to reaion, which
" he would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond hisflrength
*' to have dilcovered himfelf. Native and original truth, is not
** fo eafiiy wrought out of the mine, as we who have it delivered
** ready clv^ and faff ioned into cur hards, are apt to imagine,
" And how often at fifty, and threefcore years old, are thinking
*' men told, what they wonder how they could mifs thinking
*' of? Whi h yet their own contemplations did not, and polPitly

never would have helped them to. Experience fhe-^s, that the
** knowledge of m.orality, by mere natural light (how agreeable
** foever it be to it), makes but a flow progrefs and little advance

((

135 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, vii;

" in the world: Whatever was the caufe, it is plain in fa6l, that
" human reafon, unaffifted, failed men in its great and proper
** bufmefs of morality."

8. As it is unquefiionably certain, that the raoR part of man-
kind arc not able, by their own reafon to frame a complete body
of morality for ihemfelves, or find out what is their own duty
in every particular indance. (I ftiall not fpeak of any man's be-
ing obliged to difcover what belongs to other people's duty, left
our antagonifts (hould fufpei5l Idefigned to open a door for priefts,
afet of men and an office which they mortally hate). I fpeak only
of what is every one's duty in particular. And I fay it is evident,
that the moft part of mankind are unable to find this, which is
Dot to be done, but by fuch f^rains of reafoning, and connexion
©f confequences, which they have neither leifure to weigh, nor,
for want of capacity, education and ufe, (kill to judge of; and
as I fay, they are unable for this, fo I fear this tafk will be
found too hard for the ableft philofophers* Particular duties
sre fo many, and many of them fo remote fiom the firft prin-
ciples, and the connexion is fo fubtile and fine fpun, that I
fear not to fay that it mufl: cfcape the piercing eyes of the mod
acute philofophers : and if they engage in purfuit of the difco-
very, through fo many and fo fubtile confequences, they mufl:
either quit the unequal chace, or lofe themfelvea inftead of
finding truth and duty. And if we allow ourfelves to judge of
v'hat (hall be, by what has been the fuccefs of fuch attempts, I
am fure this is more than bare guefs.

9. It is further to he obferved, that no tolerable progrefs could
be made herein, were it to be done before advanced years. But
it is certain, that youth, as well as riper age, is under the law
of nature^ and that that age needs clear difcoveries of duty the
more, that in it irregular paffions and inclinations arc more vi-
gorous, and it is expofed to more temptations than any other
part of a man's life ; and befides, it wants the advantages of
experience, to fortify it againft the dangerous influence of them,
which advanced years are attended with. Now it will be to
no purpofe to me, to find out fome years hence what was my
duty before, as to obedience ; for now the feafon is over. The
law may difcover my fin, but can never regulate my praElice^
in a period of my life that is paft and gone. Every man muft
hive the knowledge of each day's duty in its feafon. This is
not to be had from the light of nature. If we are left at a lofs in
our younger years, as nature's light will have us, we may be

ruined

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 137

ruined before knowledge come. Much fin mud be contrad^ed,
and ill habits are like to be very much ftrengthened before any
ftop come : yea, they may be fo ftrong, that the foundation of
inevitable ruin may be laid.

Finally, knowledge is requifite before a6\ing ; at leaft, in
order of nature it \z fo, and muft, at leaft in order of time, be
contemporary. Acllon gives not always time for long reafon-
ing and weighing fuch trains of confequences, as are requifite
to clear duties from the firft principles of nature's light, and
enforce their obligation. And therefore man left to it, is in a
miferable plight, not much unlike to the cafe of the Romans,
Du?n deliberant Ro?nani capitur Saguntum* : While he is
fearching for duty, the feafon is loft ; and the difcovery, if it
comes, arrives too late to be of any ufe.

It is in vain for any to pretend, that the knowledge of duty
is connate to the mind of man. Whatever may be pretended
as to a few of the firft principles of morality, and it is but a very
few of which this can be alleged, yet it iscertain, it can never
be without impudence extended to the thoufandth part of the
duties we are bound to in particular cafes. General rules
may be eafy ; particular ones are the difficulty, and the
application of generals to circumftantiated cafes is a hard
tafk. It is but with an ill grace pretended, that thefe duties
are felf-evident, and the knowledge of them innate or connate,
call it what you pleafe,to the mind of man; which the world has
never been agreed about ; which wife men, when the faireft oc-
cafions offered of thinking on them, could not difcern ; which
philolophers, upon application and attention, cannot make out
from the principles of reafon. The reafon why the knowledge
of any truth is faid to be innate, is, becaufe, cither the mind of
man is ftruck with the evidence of it on its firft propofal,
and muft yield aflent, without feeking help from any principles
of a clearer evidence ; or becaufe its dependence on fuch principles
is fo obvious, that the conclufion is fo plainly connected with
fuch principles, that It is never focner fpoke of, than its con-
nexion with them, and fo its truth, appears. Of the firft fort
few duties can be faid fo be. And if they were of the laft fort,
any perfon of a tolerable capacity would be able to demonftratc
them upon attention. New how far it is otherwifc in this cafe,
who fees not?

Upon

* " While the Romnns were deliberating, Saguntum was taken."

R

138 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. viii.

Upon the whole I mud couclude, that nature's light is not
fufticient to give wsfucka law or rw/^ as may be ?i fur e guide to
thofe who defire to go right, fo that they need not lole their way
or miftake their duty, if they have a mind to know it, nor be
uncertain whether they have done it.

It will not relieve the deifts to pretend, that fome of the excep-
tions above mentioned may be retorted upon Chriftians, and im-
proven againft the fcriptures: For nothing but ignorance of the
true fiate of the queflion can give countenance to this pretence.
The fcriptures are a rule provided by fovereign grace for fallen
man, and by infinite wifdom are adjufted to God's great defign of
recovering man to the praife of his own grace, in fuch a way as
m2iyjlain the pride of all glory. They are fufficient as an out-
ward mean, and do effectually conduct man to that happinefsde-
figned for him, under the influence of the afTifting grace provided
for him, and in the ufe of the means of God's appointment. ,
They provide a relief againfi: any unavoidable defe6is in his obe-
dience, and dirc£l to the proper grounds of his acceptance in it :
But men who pretend nature's light is able to guide to happinefs,
are obliged to ihew that it affords us a rule of duty ; which of
itfelf, without the help of any fupernatural aiTiflance, either as
to outward means or inward influences, may be able to lead man
to the obedience required ; and this obedience muft be fuch, as an-
fwers our original obligation, and upon account of its own worth,
is able to fupport, not only a hope of aceptance but of future,
nay eternal rewards. For fuch as are left to nature's light, can
neither pretend to any fuch outward means, nor inward aflifiance,
nor any /uch relief againfi: defc£ls in knowledge or pra6\ice,
as the fcriptures do furniih us with. Nature's light lays no
other foundation for hopes of acceptance or reward, fare only
the worth or perfection of the obedience itfelf. And this, if it
is duly confidered, not only repels the pretended retortion, but
gives additional force to the foregoing argument.

CHAP. VIII.

Proving the Infuffciency of Natural Religion from its DejeBs
as to fufficient Motives for enforcing Obedience.

TT is warmly difputed in the fchcols, whether revardsDnd
-*- puniflirnents be not {o much of the ejfence of a law, and fo in-
cluded in its notion, that nothing can properly be (iilcd kw

which

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 139

which wants them ? I defign not to make myfelf a party in thofe
difputes. But this much is certain, that laws and government
are relatives ; they mutually infer and remove each other.
There is no government properly fo called, that wants laws, or
fomewhat that is the meafurcand ftandard of its adminiftration.
And there arc no laws where there is no authority and govern-
ment to enjoin them. Whence this plainly refults, fhat obedi-
ence, if it does no more, yet it certainly entitles to the protec-
tion of the government* And difobedience, not only deprives
of any title to that, but lays open to fuch further feverities, as
the government fliall have power to execute and fee meet to ule
for its own prefervation, againfi: violaters of its conflitutions.
But further, to wave this difpute, the nature of man, which
proceeds not to a6\ions fave upon knowledge, makes this much
certain, That whatever he may be fuppofed to be obliged to in
flridl duty, yet really in fa6l, he ufes not to pay any great re-
gard to laws which are not enforced by motives or inducements,
that may be fuppofed to work with him, as containing difcove-
ries of fuch advantages attending obedience, and difadvantages
following difobedience, as may powerfully fway him to coniult
his duty as well his intereft, by yielding obedience. If then
natural religion is found unable to difcover thofe things which
ordinarily prevail with man to obey, and carry him over any
obftrudtions v/hich lie in the way, it can never be fuppofed fuffi-
cient to lead man to happinefs : For man is not to be driven,
but led ; he is not to be led blind-folded, but upon rational
views of duty and intereft. That natural religion is in this ref-
pe6l exceedingly defedive^ is the defign of this difcourfe to de-
monfirate. Ail thofe motives, which ufually have any influ-
ence, may, I think, be brought under the following heads.

1. A full vie'.y of the authority of the lawgiver and his laws.

2. A profpe6f of prefent benefit by obedience. 3. A profpect of
future rewards for it. 4. Fear of puniQiment in cafe of diiobedi-
ence. And 5. Examples. Now, as I know no motive which may
not eafily witiiout ftretch be refoiv^d into one of thofe, fo, if f
make it appear that nature's light is lame as to each of them,, I
think I have gone a great way to difprove its fufficiency to hap-
pinefs. Well, let us elTay it.

I, The great inducement to obedienc-e is <2 t/c^^r difcovery of
the authority of the lazvgiver, and laws thence refuiting. This
is not perhaps, properly fpeaking, a motive, as it i.i oft ufed :
for in very deel th's is the lorrnal reafon of cbc.Hjnce ; a regar-:!

'Alisreto

I40 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. viii.

whereto gives any a6lion the denomination of obedience, and
entitles to the law's protc(5\ion, and other advantages ; yet cer-
tain it is, that thisfhould have the principal influence, from the
grouiid jurt now laid down, and therefore v/e (hall here fpeak of
it. Jt will prevail far with man to obey the law of nature, if
nature's light clearly dlfcovers how much the lawgiver defervcs
that place ; how well he is qualified for it ; how indifputablc
his title to the government is, and how far he has interpofed his
authority ; that the ftamp of it is on thefe laws, to which wc
arc urged to be fubje6t ; that they bear a plain congruity to his
fublime qualifications ; that he is concerned to have them obey-
ed ; obferves the entertainment they meet with ; entertains a
refped for the obedient, and refents difobedience. If we arc
left in the dark, as to all or mod of thefe, it will exceedingly
weaken our regard to the law. And that this is plainly the cafe,
is now to be made appear, i. It goes a great way toward the
recommendation of any law to be fully fatisfied as to the quali-
fications of the framer. But how dark is nature's light here ?
It dlfcovers indeed his power and greatnefs : But its notions of
his wifdom, juftice, clemency and goodnefs are exceedingly
darkened, by the fecmingly unequal diftrlbutions of things here
below, the innumerable miferies, under which the v/orld
groans, and other things of a like nature ; that truly very {qv/
if left merely to its conduct, would reach any fucli difcovcrics
of thofe glorious properties, as would influence any confiderablc
regard to thofe laws he is fuppofed to make.

I difpute not now what may be iiri^tly known and demon-
ftrated of God, by a train of fubtle arguments. For 1 would
not he underflood fo much as to infinuate the want of objeBiv:
ezjidences of the wifdom and goodnefs of tht Deity » Our quef-
tion refpecis not fo much thefe, as mans power of difccrning
them. It is not abfolutely denied, that there arc many and
pregnant evidences of ihefe attributes in the works of creation
and providence ; our quefiion is only, Whether there is fuch
evidence of thofe perfections, cfpecially in God's moral govern-
ment of the world, every where appearing, as may be able
cfFe^^ually to influence the practice, and aifec^ the mind of man
in his prcfcnt flate, notwithflanding of any obRructions arifing,
cither from (he inward weaknefs of his faculties, or the works
of God from without, which to the darkened mind of man
may have a contrary appearance ? And that which I contend
is, That fuch is the flatc cf thicgs, fo they go in the world, and

fo

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 141

fo blind are men's eyes, that there is not fo near and clear evi-
dence of thefe things, in what is difcernible by the moft of
men, as may ftrike flrongly, atteiSt powerfully, and have a live-
ly influence to quicken to pra6lice. If our governor is near, if
he is daily converfant with us, if we have daily indifputed evi-
dences of his goodnefs, wifdom, juOice, clemency, and other
qualifications fitting for government, without any a6tions that
may feem to be capable of a contrary conftru^^ion, or even of a
dubious one, this enforces a regard to his commands. On the
contrary, if he is little known, if his way of management is
hid from us, if there are inflances, which however poffibly they
may be juft, yet have a contrary appearence to us, this weak-
ens regard and quite confounds. And this is plainly the cafe
as to God, with men left to the mere condudi of nature's light,
not through any defect on God's part, but through the darknefs
of the mind of man in his prefent flate ; and this is the more
confidcrable, that we ufc to be more tenfible of what evil any
is fuppofed to do us, than of what good we may receive from
them. Now fince this obfcrvation is of life to prevent mifiakes,
1 defirc it may be carried along through the reft of our remarks.
2. It works powerfully, and ftrongly excites to obedience, if
the indifputablenefs of the lawgiver's title, and the grounds
whereon it leans are clearly known. Now as to God, the
grounds of his title to the legiflative as well as executive power,
are the fuper-cminent excellency of his nature, rendering him
not only fit, but the only fit perfon for it ; his creation of all
things, and thence refuJting, propriety in them as his creatures,
fuch as his prefcrvation of them in being, his providential care
and infpe^tion, and the many benefits he befiows on them. But
we have heard already, how dim the difcoveries of God's fuper-
cminent excellencies are, which the light of nature affords. As
to his creation, it was difputcd among the learned and quite
overlooked by the vulgar, amongft thofe who were left to na-
ture's light, as baron Herbert well obfcrvcs and clears. As (o
hisclofc influence in their prefervatioc, it could not be noticed
or known, where the other was overlooked. His providential
care and infpe6iion, which perhaps, as to its power of influ-
encing, would go the greateft length, if it can be proven by
the light of nature ; yet cannot certainly by it be explained,
and truly is fo darkened by many obvious occurrences in the ex-
ternal adminiftration of the world, that paft all pcradvcnture, it
can never fuitably aficdl men, who have no other difcoveries of

it.

142 AN INQUIRY IxXTO THE chap. viii.

J*, than the light of nature affords. As to God's benefits,
though they are many, yet thc}?^ did not affe6l fo much, becaufe
they were conveyed by the intervention of fuch fecond caufes as
did arred, inOead of helping forward the (liort-fighted minds
of men, and detained them in contemplation of the fervant
who bioaght the favour, whereas they fhould have loekcd fur~
ther, to him who fent it ; fo they (hould have done, but fo they
did not. Again, fome of their moil valuable benefits, their
virtues, they denied God to be the author of, as we have heard
above from Seneca, Cicero and Epi6letus. And finally, fome
•"^f them were inclinable to think, that the benefits were more
than countervailed by the evils we labour under. Thus were
the minds of men darkened, and fo they had continued, if we
had been without revelation, 3. It is of much force to influ-
ence obedience, if we have a clear and fatisfying difcovery of
his government in thofe laws ; that is, that he who is thus qua-
ficd for, and rightfully poffefTed of the government, has made
fuch laws, and ftamped his authority on them. However great
ideas we have of his excellency and title to give laws ; yet this
will have no weight, if we are not clearly fatisfied that thefe are
/z2i laws. Now how palpably dcfe6live nature's light is here, has
been fully made out in the laft chapter. 4. It will have no
imall force, if we had a clear knowledge, that thefe laws are
in their matter fully congruous to the qualifications we defire in
a lawgiver, fuch as wifdom, goodnefs, jnftlce, clemency, and
the like. But as thefe attributes are either not known or darkly
known by the light of nature ; fo the imprefs of them on the
laws of nature has not been difcovered, nor is it difcoverable :
for I doubt not but it might eafily be made appear, that the
whole frame of the laws of nature are adapted to the nature cf
man as innocent, and indued with fuflicient power to continue
lb, which is not the cafe wilh him now. And therefore how to
reconcile thefe laws to the- notions of God and man is a fpecu-
lation, as of the laft confcquencc, fo of the greateft difficulty,
wiiich had never been got through, if God had not vouchfafed
\-\^ another guide than nature's light. 5. If the lawgiver is cei-
tainly known to have a great regard to his laws, and to lake
careful inipeiHiion of the obfervation of them ; this will be a
llrong inducement to regard tliem. Rut liere nature's light is
no iefs dark, than as to the reft. The whole face of things in
the world Teem to have fo contrary an afpei^^, that we could ne-
ver it<i clearly through this matter, if, without revelation, we

were *

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 143

were left to judge of God by the mere light of nature. The
abounding of fin, profperity of finners, fufferings of the beft,
and the like, led fonr.eto deny God's providence and government
entirely ; others of the better fort doubted of it, as Claudian
elegantly reprefents his own eafe, lib. i. contra Rufinum.

Sape mihi duhiam traxit fententia menteniy
Curarent fuperi terras^ an ullus inejjet
Re^or y incerto fluereyit mart alia caftt.
Nam cum dijpojiti quajtjjemf^dera muftdU
F reef criptof que mar i fine h annifque meatus y
Et iifcisy notijque 'vices : Tunc omnia rebar

Confilis firmata Dei ■

Sed cum res hominum tanta caligine njoln^i
Adfpiceremy l<£tof(^ue diu florere nocentes,
Vexarique pios : Rurfus lahefaBa cadehat
Religio caujfceque 'viam vonjpontefequehar
AlteriuSi 'vacuo qu^e currere femina motu
Affirmat magnumque ncvas per inane figufas
Fortuna, non arte, regi: qu<^ numina fenfji
Amhiguo 'vel nulla putaty 'uel nefcia nojirij*'

I know that Claudian got over this by Rufinus's death, but
fuch providences have not always the like ilTue, and I only
adduce his words as a lively reprefentation of the ftraif. Yea,
to fo great a height came thefe doubts, that it is to be feared
that many were carried to the worfl fide. It is certain the
beft of them were fo confounded with thofe occurrences,
that they could not fpare refledions full of blafphemy upon

Providence,

* " I had often my mind diftrafted with doubt, whether the gods
took care of the world, or whether there was no governor in it, and
the affairs of mortals fluduated under uncertain chance. For when i
had enquired into the laws of the world, as difpofed into order, and
the bounds that are prefcribed to the fea, and the courie of the yerr
and the fucceflion of day and night, then I thought that theie things
were eftablifhed by the wifdom of Gcd. But again when 1 faw fhat
the affairs of men were involved in fo great darknefs, that the wicked
f^oiuilhed in joy for a long time, and that the godly were harrafTed,
Religion being weakened, expired, and I againft my will followed the
trafl of another opinion, which fuppofed that the feeds of things have
a blind motion, and that new form* of things are directed through aa
immcnfe void, by chance, and not by art, and which fuppofes that the
deities have cither an ambiguous fcnfe or none at all, and chat they
know nothing of us.'*

144 ANINQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. vni.

Providence, The famed Cato's lad words may fcarccly be ck-
cufed for this crime. Finally, it is certain, that iherc was
fo much darknefs about this matter, that Hone of them all paid a
due regard to God.

1 (hall now leave this head, after I haveobferved one or two
things ; and the firft of them is, That however fomc of tlicfc
truths above mentioned may pofTibly be made out by a train
of fubtle arguments ; yet fuch arguments, however they
may draw an affent from a thini^.ing man, not only tranfcend
the capacity of the vulgar, but fall of exciting and affed^ing
even the moft philofophicai heads. For to draw forth our
a6llve powers into a6lion, the inducements muft (bine with a
light; that m.ay warm the mind as it were, not only diflipat-
ing doubts about the reality of what it obferved, but alfo
lhewi»g its excellency. Upon this occafion 1 may not im-
pertinently apply to the philofophers> what Plautius fays of
comic poets,

SpeBa-'vi ego priiem ccmicos ad ijitim modum
Sapienter dida dicere, (itqne illis plaudier
Cum illos fapienUs mores mo7rJirabant populo :
Sed cum inde faum quifque ihant dvverji domumj
Nulus erat ilia pa^oy ut illi jujferunt**

** I have often feen, that after the comic poets have fald
** good things, and that they have been applauded for them
** while they taught good manners to the people, as foon as they
** were got home, no body was the better for their advice."
The other thing I obferve, is, that any defeat as to the know-
ledge of the lawgiver is fo much the more confiderable than
any other, that a regard to the lawgiver is that which gives the
formality of obedience to any a6Uon, and therefore the Icfs
knowledge there is of him, the lefs of obedience, properly (o
called, there will be. Thus far we have cleared how little
nature's light can do for enforcing obedience from the difcovc-
rits it makes of the lawgiver.

2, A fecond head of motives to duty is prefsnt advantage.
Now if nature's light is able to prove, that obedience to the
law of nature is like to turn to our prefent advantage, cither

a»

* Lc Clerk Parrhofianay page 52.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS.

■i.i

as to proHt or pleafure, this would be of weight: But it i^
needlefs to infili on this head ; for v.'ho fees not, that there
is but iittle to be fald as to many duties here? Are fhey not
to crofs our prefent inclinations? And for any thing that na-
ture's light can ditcover, diametrically opponte to our prelent
Jntereit and honour; I mean according to the notions general-
ly entertained of thofe things in the world? So it is but little
that it can fay upon this head. How often are we fo fitu-
atedl, that in appearance notiiing ftands in our way to pleafure,
honour or profit, but only the command? It were eafy to en-
large on this head; but fmce it will not be readily controverted
I wave it. And indeed it were of no conGderation, if prefent
lodes were othenvife compenfated by future advantsges,

3. If nature's light can give a full view of frUurd rewardi,
then this will compenfate prcient dil'ad vantages, and be a
llrong inducement to obedience. But the difcovery, if it 19
of any ufe, muil; be clear and lively, that it may afpeti **nd
excite, as has been above obferved. Well, what can nature's
light do here? Very little, as has been above fully demon-
ftrated, when we difcourfed of the chit f end. It remains only
now that we obferve that evils and difadvantages difcouragino;
from duty are prefent, fenlible, great, and fo atfeiSt fironglv: "^
wherefore if future rewards have not fomewhat to balance
thefe, they cannot have much influence. Now it has been
made fufficlently evident, that all Vvdilch nature's light has to
to put in the balance, to encourage the mind to go an in d-;fy,
agalnfl prefent, fenfible, certain and great difcouragemcnts,
is at mofl, but a dark, conjectural difcovery of rewards, or
rather fufpicion about them, af:er time, without telling u»
what they are, or wherein they do confiH:. Will tiiis ever
prevail with men to obey? No if. cannot. The profpect of
future rewards was not that which prevailed witli the mon.
moral amongfl; the heathens of old. Th.eir knovvieJoe of
thefe things, if they had any, was of little or no ufe or in-
fluence to them, as their excitement to virtue.

4. Nature's light is no lefs defective as to xhz difco-erv of
puniPii'nents: For however the forebodings ofKuiUv coniclcnccs,
a dark tradition handed down from generation to generation,
and ibme exemplary inflances of divine feveiity, hav^ kept
fome impreffions of punllliments on the mind's of many in
ail ages; yet it is well known, that thofe things were ridi-
culed by moft of the philofophers, the poet's fictions rnads

S iheai

146 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. viii.

them corxtemptible, and the daily inftances of impunity of
finners here, weakened the impreffions. Befides, evils that
follow duty, and loires luRained, are fenfible, prefent, cer-
tain, known, and fo affecl flrongly, and therefore are not
to be balanced by punilliments, which are not, or rather, at
leaft, are rarely executed in time, and whereof there is little
diflinil evidence after time. For be it granted that the jufticc
and holinefs of God render it incredible that fo many tranf-
greilors as efcane unpuniflicd here, fhould get off fo ; yet cer-
tain it is, that nature's ligiit can noway inform what punifh-
ment (hall be infli6ied.

5. Nature's light can never point ns to exa??iples vjh'ich m2iy
have any inliuence. There are but few of thofe who wanted
revelation, even of the philofophers, who were not tainted with
grofs vices. We have (Irange ilories told of a Socrates; and
yet after all, he was but a forry example of virtue. He is fre-
quently by Plato introduced fu'earing. He is known to have
balely complyed with the way of worfnip followed by his own
country, which was the more impious, that it is to be fuppo-
fed to be againfl the perfuafion of his confcience ; yea we find
him with his lafl breath, ordering his friend to facrifice the
cock he had vowed to Efculpaius. M. Dacier's apology for
him is perfectly impertinent. He is accufed of impure amours
with Aicibiades, and of proRituting his wife's chaftity for
gain. It is evident that in the whole of his condu6t, he (liews
but little regard to God. Such are the examples we are to ex-
pcdl here. We might give full as bad account of the famed
Seneca, were it neceiTary to infift on this head not to mention
others of lefs confideration.

Now to conclude, how fhall we by nature's light be pre-
vailed on to obey, while it gives fo unfatisfying difcoveries of
the law and lawgiver ? Can Ihew fo little of prefent or future
advantage by obedience, cr difadvantagc by difobedience?
Nor can it offer any examples that are worth follovving.

It is certain that the experience of the world juftifies this
account. VVMiat means it, that inflances of any thing like
virtue arc fo rare where revelation obtains not? Sure it mud
i'ay one of two, if not both; that either nature's light prefent
no in duce?7ie nts fuificicnt to \ni\ucnce pral'hcef or that man is
dreadfully corrupt I The deifts may chufe which, or both,
and let them avoid the confequences if they can.

It had been cafy to have laid a great deal more on this head,

Ihe

PRINCIPLES OF THE IMODERN DEISTS. 147

The fubjea would have admitted of confiderable enlargement;
but this iny defign will not allow. I intend to keep ciofe to
the argument, and run out no further than is of neceffity
for clearing the force of that. And where tlic cafe is plain,
as I take it to be here, I content inyfelf with touching at the
heads which clear the truth under debate.

C H A P. IX.

Shewing the Importance of knowing theOrigin of Sin to iht toerld,
and the DefeBivenefs of Nature's Light as to this,

JT is not more clear that the fun (hines, than that the whole
world lies in wickednsfi. The creation groans under the
weight of this unweildy load, which lies lb heavy upon it,
that it is the wonder of all who have any right notions of the
jiiftice or holinefs of God, that it is not funk into nothing,
or exquifite niifery before now. Tl:e Heathens made bitter
complaints of it. And indeed if their complaints had been
left upon themfelves, and had not been turned into accufations
of the holy God, none could have wondered at them, or con-
demned them. For it is manifefl to any one who will not
Hop his ears, put out his eyes, flifle his confcience, forfwear
and abandon his reafon, that thi world is full offn, what nati-
on or place is free of idolatries, blafphemies, the raging of
pride, revenge, perjuries, rape:, adulteries, thefts, robberies,
murdeis, and other abominable evils innumerable? And who
fees not, that all thefe are the effecls of ftrong, prevailing,
imiverfal and contagious corruptions and depraved inclinations;
from a il^are of which, no man can jufily pretend l/imfelf free?
And if he (hould, any one v.'ho llriflly cbferves his way, may
eafily implead him, either of grofs ignorance or difingenuitv.

To know how tilings came to this pafs with the Vv^orld, and
trace this evil to its fountain, is a bufmefs of great importance
to religion. Yea, of fo much moment is it, that one can
icarcely tell how any thing like religion is to be maintained
in the world, without fome, competent knowledge of it,

I. It this is not known, we can never make any right
fTtimate of the evil of fn. If men were by their original con-
llitutlon, without their own fault, made of fo wicked or in-
hrm 3 nature, as that either they were inclined to it, or una-
ble

14^ a:: IXQIIRY I A TO THE chap. ix.

ble to refill temptations, aniongO: the throng of v.'hich they
Mere pieced, it is impolTible lor them to Jook upon lin as lo
detellable an evil as rcaiiy it is; or blame tbenlelvcs lo much
for it, as yet they are bound to do. If it is quite otherwile,
i.rid ii)2u was orignally upright, and fell not into this cafe,
but by a fault juftly chargeable on him, it is certain, that
cu'te ether apprchenfions of lin fhould be maintained. Now
Ji^ch as men's apprehctifions are about the evil of (in, fuch
vviil their care be to avoid it, prevent it, or get it removed.
/\nd who fees not, that the whole of religion is eahly redu-
cible to thefc things?

2. If the cri'iin of ftii is not underflood, man can never
iiridcifiancl what he is obliged to in the uay of duty. If
ve devivc this ueaknefs, wickcdnels and depiavcd inclination
troni our hrlt conliitulion, we can never lock on ourielves
i!s obliged to fuch an obedience, as the rectitude, holmefs,
and. purity of the divine nature, iecms to render neceflary.
Aiidi if we arc uncertain as to this, we (hall never knew
};o\v far our duty extends. And if v\ e know not what is re-
CLiircd of us, how can we do it? To fay we are bound to
cbey as far as we can, is to fpeak nonfenfc, and what no
v.ay hitishes the diHiculty : For this leaves us to judge of our
own power, opens a door to maa to interpret the law as he
picafcs, arid charges God with fuch folly in the frame of the
law, a^ we dare fcarcely charge on any human lawgiver.

3. VViihout the knowledge of the origin oj Jin, we can
never know what m.eafures to take, in fubduing our corrupt
ir.chnatzojis* If we know not of what nature they are, liow
they come to be interwoven with our frame, and fo m.uch of a
j:i<^ce v.ith ourfeives, we {hail not know w here to begin at-
tempts lor leforuiation, cr if it be piaciicabJe to eradicate
ihen.. And yet this mull be done, otliervviic we cannot m ith
^'ay fliew of reafon project happinels. But the life of corrup-
tion being ^^id, we Ihali neither know wliat it is to be removed
or v here 'to begin our work, nor liow lar fucccls to aUempts
it this bind n;ay reafonabiy be hoped for. And of how
diiliru^tivr. confequenre this is to all rcligicn is eahly ieen.

4. If the origirt cj Jin is not knoM-n, we will be at a lofs
V » at tl.oLghts io iSitertain of God's hoUh'eJs, J'l/Uce and
gooc(r,'js, yea and his wijdom too. ]f our natures ^tx^ ori-
ginaly burdened with thole corrupt inclinations fo twiOed in
W'ith them, i.s now we find them; or if we were fo inhrm, as

not

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 149

r^ot to be able to refift a throng of temptations, among which
we were placed, we will icarcely be able to entertain fuch a
high regard for God's holincls, gcodnefs and wifdom in our
make, or of his jullice in dealing fo by us. And if We fup-
pofe oiherwife, we will ftili be confounded by our darknefs
about any other way we can poihbiy think of, whereby things
were brought to this pals, and mankind fo univerfally preci-
pitated into fo miferable a cafe.

5. if the origin of evil is not known, wc (hall never be
able to judge what ejiimate God will make of fin, whether
he will look on it asy^; evil as to demerit any deep refent-
ment, or otherwife.

6. Hereon it follows, that the whole flatc of our affairs
with God, will be quite darkened and become unintelligible.
We ihall not know whether he fhall animadvert fo heavily
on us for our fins, as to ruin us, or fo flightly pafs over them,
as not to call us to an account. If the latter is fuppofed
obedience is ruined; confidering what man's inclinations and
temptations are: who will obey, if no ruin or hurt is to be
feared by fin ? ii the former is fuppofed, our hope is ruined*
We ftiall not know what value God will put on our obe-
dience, if this is not known ; whether he will not reject it
for the finful dcfeds cleaving to it. Kor fhall we know
whether he will pardon us, or upon what term»s, if we know
i?ot what thoughts he has of fin. -And this we know not,
rior can we poflibly underfland, unlefs we know how it came,
and came to be fo twilled in with our natures.

Finally, hereon depends any tolerable account of the ^^t/zVy
of God's proceedings^ at leall: of his gcodnefs in dealing fo
wilh the world, fubjedlng it to fuch a train of miferies. If
any thing of fin is chargeable juftly upon man's make and
firlf conftitution, it will be much to clear his juOicc, but
harder to acquit his goodnefs in plaguing the world fo. If
oiherwife, it will be eafy to juftify God: but how then were
men brought to this cafe?

Thus we have firsortly hinted at thofe grounds that clear the
importance of the cafe. /\n enlargement on them would have
made the dullefl underfland, that without fome fatisfying ac-
count of the oiigin of evil, all religion is left loofe. The ju-
dicious will eafiiy fee it. It now remains that we make appear
the infiifficiency of nature's light. To clear this point, it is
evident if we confider,

I. That

I50 AN INQ^URY INTO THE chap. ix.

I. That rr.od of the wife men of the world have pafied over
thie in filcnce, as a fpeculatlon too hard and high. The efFecls
of it were fo fcnfiblc, that they could not but notice them, as
the Egyptians did the overflowing of their Nile. But when
they would have traced thefe ftreams up to their fource, they
were forced to quit it as an unequal chace. The reafon where-
of is ingcniouily, as well as folidly given by the judicious
Dr. Stillingfl^et, ** The reafon was, fays he, as corruption in-
crcafed in the world, fo the means of inflruc^ion and know-
ledge decayed ; and fo as the phenomena grew greater, the
'* reafon of them was lefs underdood : The knowledge of the
** hiftory of the firfl ages of the world, through which they
*' could alone come to the full underflanding of the true caufe
of evil, infenfibly decaying in the feveral nations; info-
much that thofe v/ho are not at all acquainted with that hiRory
of the world, which was preferved in facred records among
the Jews, had nothing but their own uncertain conje61;ures to
goby, and fome kind of obfcure traditions, which were pre-
*' ierved among them, which, while they fought to redify by
** iheir interpretations, they made them more obfcure and falie
'* than they found them.*

2. Others who would needs appear more learned, but were
really lefs wife, offered accounts, or pretended to fay fome-
what, rather to hide their own ignorance, than explain what
they Ipoke of. So obfcure are they, that nothing can be con-
cluded from what they fay, but that they were ignorant, and
yet fo difingenuous and proud that they v/culd not own it.
Among this fort Plato is reckoned, and with him Pythagoras,
vho tell us, *' that the principle of good is unity, finity,quief-
** cent, ftreight, uneven number, fquare, right and fplendid ; the
*' principle of evil, binary, infinite, crooked, even, long cf
** cne fide, uneqwai, left, obfcure. f" Plutarch as is noted
by Dr. Siiilingfleet, fays, that the opinion of Plato is very eb-
icurc, it being his purpofe to conceal it ; but he faith in his
eld age, in his book de Legibiis, « ^' ''cx.iviyi/.ij)) nlk arvu(3o\i Z^
without any riddle and allegory, he aiTerts the world to be
Hioved by more than one principle, by two at the lead ; the one
or a good and benign ns^iure, the other contrary to ir, both in its

nature

* Or:2inesf:icrr, lib. 3. cnp. 3. kCt, 8.
t Orioi;-n.'&. iacra", ibid, fed, 11.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS.

'^5^

nature and operations rw {j.ev ocyocQapv eivxi, rmos Ivxynx^ rxvr/t y^ rx¥

3. Another, and perhaps the greater part, did plainly give
the inofl: abfurd and ridiculous, not to lay blalphemous accounts
of this matter. Some pretending all the vltiofity inherent
in matter, which they fuppofed not created. The folly as well
as wickednefs of this opinion, is well laid open by the judici-
ous perfon lad quoted. This was what Plato aimed at, as
Dr. Stillingfleet clears from Numenius, a famous Syrian Platonic
phiiofophcr, who Is thought to have lived in the fecond centur}'^,
who giving an account of Pythagoras and Plato's opinions, fays,
Pythagoras a?V, ** Exjjlente providentia, mala quoque necejjario
*' fubjlitijfe propUrta quodfylva fit & tadcm fit malitiA pr^dita :
** Platonemquc idem Nuynenius laudato quod duas mundi ani-
*' mas autumet ; unarn htnefictntijjima7n ; vialig7iam alteram fcil-.
** Sylvam* Igitur juxta Platonem mundo bona Jua Dei, tan-
** quam patris liberalitate collatafunt ; mala vero matris fylviz
*' vitio cok^ferunt***' The plain cafe Is, they thought God
and matter eternally co-exi(lent, and that vltiofity was inherent
in matter, and that God could not mend it. To this purpofe
Maximus Tyrlus a Platonic phllofopher, who lived in the fe-
cond century, fpeaks, ** That all the evils that are in the
** world, are not the works of art, but the afFedilons of mat-
** terf." StnQC2i{2iySy^^ Non pote/l arfifax mutare ^nateriamX,''*
This way the Stoicks went. Though they who have ftudied
them, pretend that there was fome difference betwixt Plato's
opinion and theirs. They who would defire a more full ac-
count both of thefe ©pinions, and the abfurdity and impiety of
them, may have it from Dr. Stillingfleet, but a great many of
the phllofophers plainly maintained two anti-gods, the one good

and

* " Although that there is a Providence, evils neceffarily exid h\
" the world, becaufc matter exlfts in it, which is naturally the caufi^
<« of evil. And Rumcnius commenis Plato who thought that thcri'
*« were two fouls of the world, the one moil beneficent, and the other,
" viz. matter, malicious. Therefore according to Plato, the good things
" that are in the world, arc conferred on it as it were by the liberality
«' of its father, but the bad things that are in ir, originate from the vi-
*« tlofity of matter, which is its mother."

+ Max. Ter. Ser. 25.

X Seneca de Provid. <•' The workman cannot change the nature'.
*•' the matter ou which he works,"

152 AN IN(iUlR\^ INTO THE chap, ix.

and the other evil. The Perfians had their Oromafdes, to whom
they afcribed all the good, and Arimanius, on whom they fa-
thered all their evils. How many run this wav, any one may
learn from Plutarch's difcourfe of Ifis and Ofiris, and judge
whether he himfeJf was not of the fame mind. What was it
that drove thofe great men on fuch wild conceits, which are
fo abfurd that they are not worth confutins; ? Nothing elfci
but their darknefs about the rife of fin. And how difmal were
the confrrquencss of thofe notions and of this darknefs ? What
elfe drove fo great a part of the world to that madnefs, to worlhip
even the Principle of evil ? Was it not this, that they enter-
tained perverfe notions about the origin of evils, both of fin
and punlQiment ?

4. Not to infill on thofe abfurd opinions, the latter accounts
we have of this matter, by perfons who reje6l the fcriptures*
after they have taken all the help from them they think meet
thousjh they are more poliihed, are not one whit more fatis-
faclory. For clearing this we Ihall orFer you the moil: con-
fiderable of this fort that have occurred to us. We fliall begin
with Simpllcius a Phrygian philofopher who lived in the fifth
century, and was a great oppofer of the fcriptures. He in
his commentary upon the 34th chapter of Epi^Sletus, fpeaks
thus, ** The foul of man is nexus ntriufquc fjiundi, in the
** middle between thofe more excellent beings, which remain
*' above (which he had taught to be incapable of fin) with
** which it partakes in the fablimlty of Its nature and under-
** ftanding, and thofe inferior terreftrlal beings, with which it
** communicates through the vital union which it hath with the
'* body, and by reafon of that freedom and IndifFercncy which
** it hath, it is fometimes afiiTiilated to the one, fometlmes to
*' the other of thofe extremes. So that while it approacheth
** to the nature of the fuperlor beings, it keeps Itfelf free from
** evil; but becaufe of its freedom, it may fometimes fink down
** into thofe lower things, and fo he calls the caufe of evil
*' In the foul, its voluntary defcent into this lower world, and
*■* immerfing itfelf in the fcculency of terreflrlal matter." much
more he ad.Js; but It all comes to this, ** That becaufe of the
•* freedom of the will of man, nothlufr elfe can be fald to be
" the author of evil, but il^^ foul." We have llkewife an ac-
count from the Oracles of Reafon much to the fame purpofe.

A. W.

* Comment, in Epift. Cap. 34.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 153

A. W. a cleift in a letter to Sir Charles Blount anfu'ering
an objediion of Sir Charles Wolleley's, againft: the fufficicncy
cf natural religion, gives this account : ** This generally acicnow-
'* ledged iapfe of nature, that it came, may be dilcovered by
*' natural light; how it came, is reafonable to conclude vvith-
** out revelation, namely, by a deviation from the right rule of
** reafon implanted in us; how he came to deviate from this
** rule, or kpfe, proceeds from the nature of goodnefs, ori-
** ginally given us by our Creator, which reafon tells us to be
** an arbitrary (late of goodnefs only ; therefore not a neceflary
** goodnefs to which our natures were conftrained. In Ihort
** our fall proceeds from our not being able to reafon lightly on
** every thing we a6t, and with iuch beings we were created :
For all our a6\ions are defigned by us to fome good which
may arife to us ; but v/e do not always diflinguiOi righily
of that good : we often miftake bojium apparras for the
honum rsale, Deapimur fptcit rcBi* The bonum jucun-
dum for want of right reafoning, is preferred to the bonum
kontflum; and the bcnum vicinum, though it be iefs
in itfelf, often carries it before the bonum rtmctunii which
** is greater in its own nature. No man ever held that we
could appttere malum qua mulum*; and therefore I will not
grant him a total Iapfe in our natures from God. For vi-e
fee many born v^ith virtuous inclinations; and though all
men at fometimes err, even the beO, in their aflions, it
only (hews that we were not created to a neceffitated good-
nefs. It is enough to prove no fatal Iapfe, that many are
proved, through the courfe of their lives, more prone to do
good than evij, and that all men do evil, only for want of
right reafoning ; becaufe the will neceffarily follows the lafl
dictate of the underltandingf." The next and laft whom
we (hall mention, is the learned Herbert, whom the reft do
but copy after. Thus then he accounts for it; ** Oi:od adma-
** lum culp^ fpcElaty hoc quidem non aliunde provenin, quem
*' ab arbitrio illo omnibus inJitOy ingaiitoquet quod tanquam

** bonum

* " An apparent good for a real good. — We are deceived by fhe
" appearance of reftitude. — A pleafmg good is preferred to an honour-
*« able good, and a near to a diftant one, but vye cannot defire evil as
«< evil."

t Oracle^ of Reafon, pag, 157,

T

J54 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. ijr.

** honuw eximium Bens optinius maximus vobis largitus efl ;
** ex quo etiam a bdluis fiiagis quam ipjo intellcBu dijlingui'-
** mur: quum tavicn adeS ancipttis fit naturce, ut in utra??!"
** que pur tern JleSIi poffiff fit ut in malum [apt propendeat &
*' dilabatur; cater um per fe ejf hen ejiciuvi plane divinum, ^i^f~
** que amplitudinis & pr^Jiunticr.f ut citra illudf neque boni
" ejje pojfemus: ecquis enim boni aliquid ejicere decitur, niji
** quando in adverfam partem datur optio? Hinc igitur ma^
** lum culpa accidtrey quod nobilijfnna amma faculfas, in Je-
*' quiorem Jua fponte partem, nulloque cogente traducatur de-
** torqueaturiue *.

Thele three accounts, in feveral rerpe£\s, run the fame
way. It were eal'y however to let them by the ears in fome
confiderable particulars, and perhaps, to fhew the inconfiflency
of the feveral authors with themfelves, on thefc heads: but
this is net my defign to fpend time en things, whereby truth
will not gain much ; as, perhaps, they contain the turn of what
reafon can fay on the head, fo we ihall now {hew how very
far they are from fatisfying in the cafe* The fubftance of
them may be reduced to thefe three propofitions :

1. That Man's body fways the foul, to which it is joined, to
things fuitable to itfelf, which are evil. This Simplicius more
than infinuates.

2. That as reafon is the guide of the will, which neceffarily
follows its laft dieiate; fo the will's inclination to evil flows
from our not being able to reafon rightly. This the Oracles of
Reafon give plainly as a refponfe in the words now quoted.

3. The will is ancipitis natura* , perfedlly indifferent, equally

capable

* De Religione Gentilium, Cap. 13. pag. 164.—" With regard to
" the evil of fin, this arifes from no other fource than our natural frce-
" dom of will, which God the beft and the greatefl has beRowed oj>
*' us as a dirtinguilhed blefllng, and by which we are diflinguiOied from
<* the brutes even more than by reafon itfelf. But as this blefiing is
<* of fo ambiguous a kind, that it may be turned either v.'ay, it hap«<
«* pens that it often inclines to evil and goes aftray. Yet in itfrlf it is
<< certainlv a divine blcffing, and of fuch an extent and excellency,
<* that without it we could not be good. For who is ever paid to do
<* any good, unlefs when he had it in his choice to ad in a different
«' manner ? Tt^e evil of fin therefore proceeds from hence, that the
<« moft noble faculty of the foul, of its own accord, and without any
«< one forcing it, is drawn away and turned to the wrong fide."

+ OY a doubtful nature.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 155

capable of, and fvvayed to evil and good. This all the three
concur in. It is like a nice balance which ftands even, hulls
eafily fwayed to either fide.

But now it is eafy to multiply difficulties againft this ac-
count, and fliew how it no way clears, but ratlier involves the
matter more. And,

I. I would defire to know whether that inferior part, the
body, or terre'lrial part of man, call it which you will, fways
to any thing, not fuited to its original frame and perfe6lion, or
not ? If it aims at nothing, bends or inclines to nothing, but what
is perfe6iive of itfelf, I defire to know how that can be faulty?
How can this body be made a part of a ccmpofition, wherein
it is faulty for it, to aim at what is truely perfedive of its nature?
Kow can it be criminal for the foul to aim at enobling and fatisfy-
ing the capacities of that, which is fo nearly united to itfelf? How
is it confiftent with the wifdom of God, to unite two beings, the
one whereof cannot reach its own perfection without hurt to
the other? Ifitisfaid, that it inclines to what contributes not
to its own perfection ; then I defire to know how it came to
be fo depraved as to have a tendency to its own detriment ?
How was it confident with the wifdom of God to make it fo ?
How was it confiftent with the goodnefs of God to affoci-
ate it when fo made, with another more noble being to which it
muft prove a burden ; yea, which muft fway to that, which
proves the ruin of the whole compolition? And how can man
be blamed for doing that, to which his nature inevitably muft
carry him ? For if he is thus compounded, his body, earthly
part, or lower faculties fway to evil ; his will is equally inclin-
able to both ; and, in this cafe, how can the compofition be o-
therwife, than depraved ? For my part I fee not how it could
be otherwife ; or how God can juRly punifli it for being fo, up-
on the fuppofition laid down.

2, If it be afferted tliat we are not, by our original conRitu-
tion able to reafon rightly, in what concerns our own duty, as
we have heard from the Oracles of Reafon ; then I defire to
know if we are not neceifitated by our very make and conHitu-
tiontoerr? If we are to believe, what the fame Oracle utters,
that the will muO follow neceflarily the underftanding; then I
defire to know, if we are not ^lecelTitated to fin? If things-are
thus and thus, we muQ either believe them to be, or believe that
this Oracle gives a falfe refponfe ; then I defire to know how
God could make us neceifarilv evil ? How can he puniih us for

it?

156 AN INQ^LmiY INTO THE chap. ix.

if ? Can this be reconciled vvl(h tbe reft of (his doiflrine, ahout
the arbitrary fiatc of man's goodncfs? I might a(k net a few o-
ther queries, but perhaps thefe vvi!l fuBke.

3. If the will be, in its own nature, perfcclly free and indifFer-
enr, then I defirc to know, whether there is any thing in that
compofition, whereof it is a part, or to which it is joined, or any
thing in the circumflances wherein man is placed, fwaying it
to the worft fide? If there is any thing either in man's conPiitu-
tion or circumftances, fwaying him wrong; then I defire to know,
13 there any thing to baJance them? Whether there is or is not
any thing to keep him even? I would dcfire to know how any
thing came to be in his'conftitution, to fway him wrong? If
there is any thing to baL-^nce thefc induccm^rnts to fin, or in-
clinations, then inan is perfectly indifferent ftill : and about this
we fhall fpeak anon, if there is a will, equally capable of
good and evil, and tr.an has fomewhat in his confiitution or cir-
cumftances, at leaft fwaying him to evil, then I defire to know
how it was pofiible for him to evite it ? If he has nothing deter-
mining him more to evil than to good, or if any thing that in-
clines toevii is balanced, by other things of no lefs force de-
termining and fwaying him to good, then many things may be
enquired: how comes it to pafs, that though man is equally, in-
clinable to good or evil, that alm.ofl ail men choofe evil? Yea
1 need not put an almoft to it. It it a Grange thing to fuppofe
all men equally difpofed to good or evil, and y-t none choofe
the good.

4. I do not know how this notion of man's liberty, which is
cahly granted to be in itfelf, if the notion of it is rightly dated,
a perfe^ion, will take with confiderate men, that it confiOs in
a perfect indifi'crency to good or evil: for if this is a nccflary
perfe6\ion of the rational nature, without which it cannot be call-
ed good, as Herbert clearly aiTerts, in his words above quoted ;
then I afk, what il^all become of thofe natures unalterably good,
of which Simplicius talks? Is it abfurd to fuppofe, that there
may be fuch? Are they, if thev be, lefs perfcc>, bccaufe uncapa-
ble of that which debafes and depraves them ? is God good, who
\us beyond difpute no fuch liberty as this? Is an indifi-ercncy to
commit fin or not to fin, a great perfedion ? If it be, is it great-
er than not to be capable of fmning ? They may embrace this
notion of lihertv who will, and fancy themlelves pcrfe61, I thall
not for this reckon them fo.

5. This account of man as equally inclined to good or evil, is

either

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 157

cither an acount of man's ca(e as he now is, or as at firft made :
If man is now otherwife, to wit, inclined more to evil than good,
how came he to be fo ? This is the difficulty we defire to be fa-
tisfied about. If this be the cafe he was made in, and ftill con-
tinues in, then, I fay, it is utterly falfe, and contradictory to the
cars, eyes and confcience of all the world. Who fees not that
man is plainly, ftrongly, and I may add unlverfally, inclined
to evil ? The wifer heathens have owned it. And it is plainly-
made out againft the mofl impudent denier. Hierocle's words,
as I find them tranilated by an excellent perfon, are memorable
to this purpofe. ** Man, fays he, is of his own motion inclined
** to follow the evil and leave the good. There is a certain ftrifc
** bred in his affcLlions ; he hath a free will which he abufeth,
** binding himfelf wholly to encounter the laws of God. And
** this freedom itfelf is nothing elfe, but a willingnefs to admit
** that which is not good, rather than otherwife*." This is a
true ftate of the matter from a heathen.

6. The fuppofition of man's being made perfectly indifferent
is injurious to God, who cannot be fuppofed, without reflection
on him, to have put man in fuch a cafe. The leaft that can be
faid, preferving the honour due to the divine excellencies, is that
God gave a law to man, fuitable to the re6titude of his own nature
and to man's happinefs and perfection ; that he endued him with
an ability to know this law, the obligations he lay under to
obey it, and the inducements that might have fortified him in his
obedience againfl the force of any temptation which he might
meet with. If this be not afferted, it will not be poilible to
keep God from blame, which all that own him, are concerned
to take care of: for how could he bind man to obey a law, which
he did not make known to him, or at leaft gave him a power to
know? If he laid him open to temptations, and made him in-
capable of difcovering what might antidote their force, if he
would ufe it, what (hall we think of his goodnefs? Further, we
muft own tliat the will of man was made inclinable, though not
not immutably fo, to its own perfe6lion: how elfe was it wor-
thy of its author? Finally, we muft own that man had no affec-
tion or inclnation in him, that was really contradictory to that
law which he was fubjeded to, and which tended to his happi-
nefs and perfection. If this is denied, then I afli, were not thefe
inclinations finful? Was that being worthy of God, that had no

tendency
* Hierccles Carmin, Aur, Tranfl. Reaf. of Script. Belief, pag. 146.

153 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. ix.

t^ndencv to its own perfef^'ion ? But on the contrary, what was
inclinable to its own ruin?

7. This being the leaf!:, that can without manifeft reproach to
the wifdom, goodnefs and juftice of the Creator, be fuppofed
in favour of man's original cooftitution ; I defire to know, is this
the cafe ftill, or is it not ? If it is not, then how came it to be
othcrwife ? How comes man originally to be worfe now, than at
firft ? How is this confiftent with the deift's principles, that
there is no lapfe? Tf it be afiTerted, we are in the fame ftate ftill,
how then comes all the world to be full of wickednefs? How is
this reconcileable with the experiences and confcicnces of men,
that affured them of the contrary?

8. If it is thought enough to refolve all this, as to a<5lual fail-
ings, into the choice of man ; yet what fhall we fay as to that
darknefs as to duty, which we heard the deifts confeffing, in
their Oracles of Reafon ? How came that inability to reafon
rightly, which we have before demonftrated man under, and
which our adverfaries will own ! Again, how come we to have
vitious inclinations fo ftrongly rooted in our natures ! Strong they
are ; for they trample upon our light, the penalties of laws
divine and human ,* yea and the fmartings of our own con-
fcience. The drunkard and unclean perfon finds his health
ruined, and yet in fpite of all this, his inclination makes him
run on in the vice that has ruined him : and the like is evident
in other cafes innumerable. Deeply rooted they are: they are
fome way twilled in with the conftitutions of our body, and no
lefs fixed in our fouls. So fixed they are, that, though our
own reafon condemns them, it cannot remove them* Though
fometimes fear reftrains them as to the outward a6ls ; yet it
cannot eradicate the inclination. Inrtru6lion and all human en-
deavours cannot do it. A famed Seneca that underftood fo much,
who undertook to teach others, and perhaps has fpoke and writ
better than moft of the heathens ; yet by all his knowledge and
all his endeavours, owns this corruption fo deeply rooted in him-
felf, that he expeded not to get rid of it. Non pertrni ad fa-
vitiiteirif nt perveniam quidem. : delim mentis magis quam remedia
podngrce Tiiece compono contmtusjirarius acctdit, & ft minus ter-
viinatur* 9. Not

* *« I am not come to a found flate, nor fhall I ever arrive at it.
*' I am compofing paliiitives rather than remedies for rny gout, being
'» content \i it aitacks <ne more feldora, and proves lefs violent."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 159

9# Not only fo, but further, hov' come thefe inclinations to
be born with us? Grow up with us? That they are fo, is
evident. We no fooner begin to a6t, than to a(Si perverfely. Wc
no fooner (hew any inclinations, than we fhew that our inclina-
tions are evil. Yea, among Chriftians, where there are many
virtuous perfons, who give the beft example, the beft inftruc-
tion, and ufe the beft difcipline for the education of their chil-
dren in virtue ; yet we fee the children difcover inclinations {o
ftrong, as are not to be reftrained by all thefe endeavours, much
Jefs eradicated: and, fo early are they there, that they cannot
be prevented by the moft timeous care.

10. It will not help the matter to tell us, that there are
fome born with virtuous inclinations. For i. If all are not
fo, the difficulty remains. How came thefe to be born other-
wife, of whom we have been fpeaking ! How came their frame
to be different from, nay and worfe than that of others! Are
they under the fame law? If fo, why have they more impe-
diments, and lefs power of obedience? 2. We would be glad
to fee the perfons condefcendcd on, that are void of vitious in-
clinations, that we might afk them fome queftions. You fay
you are born with virtuous inclinations. Well^ but have you
no ill inclinations? If you are no drunkard, adulterer, &c. yet
have you no inclination to pride, prodigality, negle<Sl of God,
covetoufnefs, or fomewhat like? 1 fear the man that can anfwer
plainly in the negative here, will not be eafily found. And
till wc fee him, we deny there is any fuch. 3. To confirm
this, feveral perfons, whom the world has looked on as virtu-
oufly inclined from their infancy, have, when ferioufly acquaint-
ed with Chriftianity, owned that they were as wickedly in-
clined as others; only by the help of their conftitution, they
were not fo much prompted to thofe evils, which are moft ob-
obferved and condemned in the world. And this account has
been given by perfons of judgment, wliofe capacity, nor inge-
nuity cannot reafonably be queftioned. Finall)^ the ground
whereon A. W. pronounces againft an univerfsl lapfe, viz.
That we cannot appetne malum qua malumf, is ridiculous :
For this is a thing perfed^ly inconfiftent, not only with the due
exercife, but the very nature of our rational faculties: And
if notwithftanding this impcffibility of any man's defir-

ing;'

+ Delire evil as evlL

i6o AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. ix.

ing evil as evil, fo many are deeply corrupted, no imagina-
ble rcafon can be alligned, why all may not be (o, without
fuppofing that we can appetere malum qua malum.

To conclude then, it is upon the whole evident, that reafon
can never trace this matter to its proper lource. Our confcjen-
ces condemn us indeed, and fo acquit the Deity. But with-
out revelation we can never underftaiid upon M^hat grounds
we are condemned by ourfelves, nor how the Deity is to be
juftified; and lo this fentence of our confciences involves the
matter more, and encreafes the difficulty. It is not from any
di(lln6l view of the particular way how sve come to be guilty, and
how God comes to be free of blame? that confcience is led to this
fente ice. And therefore, how to come to any fatisfa6lion about
the matter, that may liberate us from the inconvenicncies above-
mentioned, which are really fubverfive of all religion, and can
reafonabiy be fuppofed available to us, reafon can never falisfy ,
us.

Sirce thefe gentlemen, with whom we have to do, find it their
intercft lo deny any lapfe, I fnaii, to what has been faid, add a
fbort, but judicious and folid confirmation of this, from a perfcn
of a more than ordinary reach, I mean Dr. How : who, after he
has quoted many teflimonles from Heathen authors, proving this
lapfe, reaibns for it, and confirms it further from arguments not
eafily to beanfwered : His words run thus, ** If we confider, can
** it be fo much as imaginable to us, that the prefent flate of man
** is his primitive Hate, or that he is now fuch as he was at firfi
** made? For neither is it conceivable, that the bleffed God
** (bould have made a creature with an averfion to the only im-
** portant ends, whereof it is naturally capable : Or particu-
" larly that he created man, with a difaffe<5\ion to himfelf ; or,
*' that ever he at firfl, defigned a being of fo high excellency,
** as'the fpirit of man to trudge fo meanly, and be fo bafcly
** fervile to terrene inclinations ; or, fince there are manifeftly
" powers in him, of a fuperior and inferior fort and order, the
** meaner (hould have been by original infiitution framed to
** command ; and the more noble and excellent, only to obey
'* and ferve ; as every one that obferves, may fee the common
** cafe with man is.

** And how far he is fvverved from what he was, is eafily
*' conje6\urable by comparing him with the meafures, which
'' ihew what he fliould be. For it cannot be conceived for
** what end lawi were ever given him ; if at leafi we allow

** them

PRlNClf'LES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. i6i

** them not to be the meafures of his primitive capacity, or de-
** ny him ever to have been in a poilibility to obey. Could
** they be intended for his government if conformity to th^m
** were againft or above his nature ? Or were they only for
** his condemnation ? Or for what, if he was never capable of
*' obeying them? How^ inconfiftent were it with the goodnefs
" of the bleiTed God, that the condemnation of his creatures
** fhould be the firft dcfign of his giving them laws ! And with
** his juilice, to make his laws the rule of punllbment, to whom
** they could never be the rule of obedience and duty ! Or
** with his wifdom, to frame a fyrtem and body of laws, that
** (hould never ferve for either purpofe ! And fo be upon tl>e
** whole ufeful for nothing. The common reafon of mankind
** teacheth us to eftimate the wifdom and equity of lawgivers,
** by the fuitablenefs of their conftitutions to the genius and
** temper of the people for whom they arc made ; and we com-
** monly reckon nothing can more flur and expofe a govern-
'* ment, than the impofing of conftitutions, rpoft probably im-
'* practicable, and which are never likely to obtain. How
** much more incongruous muft it be efteemed to enjoin fuch
** as never poffibly could ! Prudent legiflators, and ftudious of
** the common good, would be fhy to impofe upon men, under
** their power, againft their genius and common ufagesf nei-
** ther eafily alterable, nor to any advantage ; much more ab-
** furd were it, with great folemnity, and weighty fan6lions, to
*' ena6l ftatutes for brute creatures : and wherein were it
** more to purpofe, to prcfcribe unto men ftridl rules of piety
** and virtue, than to bcafts or trees, if the former had not
'* been capable of obferving them> as the latter were not *."
1 believe the deifts will not eafily overthrow this nervous dif-
courfe.

CHAP. X.

Proving Nature's Light unable to dijcover the Means of obtain*
ing Pardon of Sin, or to Jhew that it is attainable.

THAT all have finned is fufficiently clear from the forego-
ing difcourfe. That it is of importance to underftand the
rife of fm, and that nature's light is unable to trace its origi-
nal,
* Dr. Haw's Living Temple, Part 2, pag. 12 1; 122.

U

i62 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ciia?. x.

nal, has been likewlfc evinced. But all this were indeed of
Jefs confideration, if nature's light could afliire U5 of pardon,
or direifi as to the means whereby it may be obtained. But here
it 13 no lefs dcfedive, than as to the former. That we are all
guilty of fm even the dcifis do acknowledge ; the Oracles of
Keafon own that all men at fcmetimes err, even the befl, in
their adlions. And the evidence of it is fuch, that none can
get over the truth, if he is not plainly refolved to deny what
is nioft evident. Now this being the cafe, that we have ail
tranfgrelTed, it is cf the highefl importance to know whether
God will pardon us, or upon what terms he will do it? If he
punilh us, what a cafe are we in? How can they who fear pu-
niihment expe6l rewards ! But becaufe this is a difficulty of no
fmail importance, and the deifls, fince they fee they cannot
clear it, make their bufmefs to obfcure the importance of the
cafe, and render it more involved; we fhall, therefore,

I. State the cafe, and clear the importance of it.

II. Difcover the weaknefs of nature's light about it.

III. Speak fully to a particular exception about repentance.

S E c T. I.
Wherein the Importance of the Difficulty is Jlated'

I F the deifts fhould allow fin to be fo great an evil, as we
pretend it is, it would exceedingly embarrafs them ; therefore
they labour to fmooth the matter by telling us, that either it is no
evil, or one of not lo great confideration, as is commonly ima-
gined : but the wildnefs and unreafonablenefs of this attempt
will be eafily (hewn, by a confideration of the evil of fin.
It is not my defign to write largely on this head, but only to
condefcend on a few of thofc confiderations, whereon we infill
for proving {in to be exceeding Jinjul : which, although they
are built on rational grounds, yet we are led to them by the
afliftance of revealed light.

I. Sin is a tranfgre/fion of a lazut the highcft law, the law
cf the fupreme and righteous Governor of the world. Where
there is no Uw there is no tranjgre/fipn. And fuch as the
law is, fuch is the tranfgreliion. There is no mere jull way
of meafuring the evil of fin, than by confidering the law it
violates. The law bears the imprefs of the higheft auihoiity,
that of the Supreme Ruler of the univcrfe. Every tranfgreifiou.
mult therefore import, if not a contempt, yet certaini)^ a v/ant

of

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 163

of due regard to this authority, which, how criminal it is in
man, who is as to being, prefervation and well-being, every
way dependent, is eafily undcrftood. Moreover, this law is
not a mere arbitrary appointment, but fuch as is the necefiary
Tcrult of the nature of God and man ; and therefore the violation
of it, imports no lefs, than an accufation of the reditude of God's
nature,whence the law refults ; and charges unfuilablenefs there-
to, upon the nature of man, as being To made, that, without
wrong to itfelf, it cannot be iubje«ft to the rule of God's govern-
ment. And v/ho fees not how deeply this reflects on God?

2. Sin contradi£\s the great defign of man's being. God made
us and not we ourjelves. It is blafphemy to allege, that infi-
nite vvifdom made fo noble a creature as man without de-
fign. Nor can it reafonably be pretended, that the chief aim
of God in making him was any other, than his having the felf-
fatisfa6iion of having a6\ed as became him, and having made
a work every way worthy of his vvifdom and holinefs. And fince
man alfo was capable of propofing defigns, it is foolifti to ima-
gine, that God eithercould or would allow him to make any other
his chief end than the pleafure of God ; oradting ^o as to make it
appearthat he was every worthy of his Author. But when man fins
he plainly countera6\s what God dcfigned, and he was obliged
to defign; for he pleafes not God, but himfelf; and this is
doing what in him lies to fruftrate God of the defign he had in his
v/ork, and dabafe the being and powers given him for the honour
of God by employing them againft him, and ufing them in con-
tradiction to his declared will.

3. Sin mifreprefents God. The works of God bear an im-
prefaof God's wifdom and power. Man only v.^as made capable
of reprefenting his moral perfections, his holinefs, juflice, truth,
and the like. But when he fins, he not only fails of his duty, but
really mifreprefents God his maker, as one who approves fin,
that is dired^iy crofs to his will, which is ever congruous to the
holinefs of his nature ; or, at lead, as one, who either wants
v/ill or power to cruili the contra veener ; and fo he is reprefent-
ed either as tmholy, or impotent ; or one, who can tamely al-
low his will to be countera6led by a creature that he has made
and fuftains. But what horrid reflexions are thefe on the holy
God?

4. Sin accufes God of want of wifdom and gocdnefs in ap-
pointing laws which were not for his creature's good, and he
could not obey wirhoqt detriment ; of envy, in barring the crea.-

ture

i64 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

ture by a law, from that which is neceflary to his happinefs ; of
infufficiency, to fatisfy the creature he has made, while he is
obliged tofeek for that elfewhere, which is not to be found in
him, in the w:Ay of obedience ; and of folly, in makifig fuch a
law, as cannot be expected to be obeyed, in regard the creature
lubje61ed to it, gain? more by breaking than by keeping of it.

I'inally, to crown all, fin dethrones God, and fets the crea-
ture in his room. The honour of God's law and authority, and
the finncr's good, are wickedly fuppofed to be inconfiftent, and
the latter is preferred. The will of the Creator aVid creature crofs
one another, and the creature's will is preferred. The friendfhip,
favour, and fufficiency of Deity is laid in balance againft fome
other imaginary good, and decifion is given againft God. Thefe
are a few of the many evils of fin. They are not drained ones.
This is not a rhetorical declamation againft fin, wherein things
are unjuftly aggravated to raife odium againft it; but a plain ac-
count of a few of the evils of it, which yet is infinitely fhort of
what the cafe would admit. But who can fully reprefent the evil
that ftrikcs againft infinite goodnefs, holinefs, jufticc, vs/ifdom,
and fupreme authority ? Who can unfold its aggravations, (avs
he who knows what God is, and what he is to man, and what
man is, and how many ways he is dependent on, fubje6>, obli-
ged and indebted to God? Well therefore may firi be faid to
have an infinity of evil in it.

The deifts, to evade the difficulties arifing from this evil
of fin, take different gourfeq. Some plainly deny any fuch
ihing as evil, or that there is any thing morally good or
bad. Thomas Aikenhead, who was executed at Edinbrugh,
January 8, 1697, ^^^ '"''^ blafphemics, in his paper he deli-
vered from the fcaffbld, tells us what his thoughts were in
in this matter, and upon what grounds they were built. When
in his rational inquiries he came to confider, whether we were
capable of otfending God, he tells us, '' That after much
** pondering and ferious confideration, he concluded the nega-
*• tive." The famed Mr. Hobbs was not of a very different
mind, for he plainly afferts, *' That there i^ nothing good or
*' evil in itfelf, nor any common laws conftituling ubat is
*' naturally juft or unjuft : but all things a^c to be meafured
** by what every man judgcth fit, where there is no civil eo-
*' vernrnent ; and bv the lav.'s of fociefy, where there is one."
And elfewhere, " Before men entered into a ttatc of civil go-
** vernrnent, there v/as not any thing juft or unjnft, foraf-

** much

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 163

*^ much as jud and unjuft are the relatives of human laws ;
** every action being in Itfelf indifferent." And whether Spi-
j:oza was not of the fame mind, is left to thofe to judge, who
have time and leifure to trace his meaning, in his obfcure
and dcfignedly involved way of writing. But furely this pro-
pofition in his atheiflical ethicks looks very like it, ** Si ho^
** mines liberi nafcerentur filter aute?n eft juxta Spinozam,
** quijtcunclum duBum vel ex duElu rationis agit) nullum boni
*' ii3 mail for mar tnt conceptumt quamdiu liberi ejfent*' Mr.
Hobbs has been learnedly confuted by many, fuch as Dr.
Cumberland, Mr. Tyrell, and almoft all who write of the
law of nature. Spinoza has likewlfe been examined by Wit-
tichius and many others. The firft, vjz. Thomas Aikenhead,
his grounds I Ihall purpofe and examine.

The firil: In his own words runs thus, ** I thought, fays
** he, a great part of morality, if not all, proceeded ex arbitrio
*' hominum\ f as of that of a kingdom, or commonwealth, or
** what moft men think convenient for fuch and fuch ends,
** and thefe ends are always teripinated upon being congruous
^* to the nature of things; now v/e fee that according to men's
** fancies things are congruous or incongruous to their na-
** tures, if not to the body, yet to the tlainking faculty."

The fum of tjils confufed difcourfe, which probably he learn-
ed from Hobbs, amounts to this; God has fixed no law to
our moral a6\ions, by which they are to be regulated. Thefe
which are called moral laws, are only the determinations of
governments, or the concurring judgment of men, concerning
what they think meet to be done for their own ends. That
wiiich fome judge meet and congruous, others may find un-
fuitable to their nature and ends, and fo are not obliged to obey.
But I. Are not all thefe ungrounded affertions, whereof no proof
is offered, but the author's deluded fancy? Has it not been
irrefragably demonftrated by as many as difcourfe of moral
good and evil, that antecedently to any government among
men, we are under a law, the law of nature, and that this is
the will of God. 3. If all thefe had kept filence, does not the
thing itfelf fpeak ? What can be more evident, than that there
\h a law of nature, and that this is the law of God ? We are cer-
tain,

* " If men were born free (and he is free according to Spinoza,
*< who ads according to the guidance of reafon) they would forai
" no conception of good or evil, as long as they wer<; free/'

+ " From the wiii of man,"

iC'3 AN INQLTIRY INTO THE chap. x.

tain, that we are made cf rational natures, capable of laws and
gov'crnnient. We are no lefs fure that God made us, and made
us To. It is felf-evident, that to him who made us, it belongs to
govern, and difpoie of us to thofe ends for which we were made.
And we by our very beings are bound to obey, fubmit, and fub-
jecl ourfeives to his will and pleafure, who made us and on
whom we every way depend, and therefore his will, if he make
it known, is a law, and the higheft law to us. Again, it is
clear tiiat this reafon, if we attend to it, tells us that fomc
ihirin;s are to be done, and fome things left undone; fuch as
thcfe, that we arc to ferve, love, obey and honour him that
made us, upholds us, and on whorn we every way depend ;
;hat we arc to carry toward our fellow-creatures, as it becomes
rhofs, who have the fame original with us, whe arc fubjedied
to the fame rule, are obliged to purfue the fame ends; and
that we are ^o difpofe of ourfeives, as the author of our na-
ture allows us. Thefe are all, if not felf-cvident, yet next
Jo it, and eafily deducible from principles that are fo. Fur-
ther, the reafon that is implanted in us by God, tells us fo, wc
are to take what it leads us to, while duly ufed, as the will
of God, and fo a law to us. ** For whatever judgment
*' God makes a man with, concerning either himfelf, or other
'• tilings, it is God's judgment, and whatever is his judgment
*' is a law to man ; nor can he ncgle^ or oppofe it without
'* fm, being in his exigence made with a necelTary fubjcc-
** tion to God. Such and fuch di6ldtes being the natural ope-
*' rations of our minds, the being and efTentiai conftitutlon of
*• which, in right reafoning, we owe to God; we cannot
'* but cileem them the voice of God within us, and confe-
** quentiv his law to us *."

What he tells us of men's different apprehen(ions, about
what is right or wrong makes nothing to the purpofc. That
only ilicws that in many iuRances we are in the dark as to
what is good and evil, which is granted ; but will not infer
that there is no fixed nieafure of good and evil. In many ge-
neral trutlis, all who apply themfelves to tliink, underftand the
terms, and have the truths nropofed, do agree. And perhaps, all
that is kncwab'e of our duty by the light of nature, isdeducible
from fuch principles of morality, as all rational men who have
them fairly propofed to them, muft: aflent to. And dedudlions

from

* bir Ci^fliks Woifelcy's Scriptars Belief, pag. 321 33*

PRINCIPLES OF THE MO DEkN DEISTS. 167

from laws, when duly made, are of equal authority with the
principles from M'hich they are inferred. And finally, when
men, in purfuance of their perverfe natures, follow what is
crofs to thofe di£\ates ofreafon, they are ccndcmned by their
confcicnces, which (hews them under the obligation of a law,
and that a6\ing in a congruity to their natures as corrupt, is
not the ftandard they are obliged to walk by, iince their own
reafon checks them for doing it. They who would defire to
have this matter fully difcourfed, may read others who have
done it defignedly, of whom there is great plenty.

His fecond reafon runs thus: ** Alfo we do not know what
'* is good or evil in itfelf, if not thus ; whatfcever can be at-
** tributed to God, that Is good; and what cannot, is evil.
** And we know not what can be attributed to God, but fuch
" things as by a dedu^ion we afcribe to him, we call perfe6t,
#** and fuch as we deny to be in him, we call Imperfet^, and fo
** we moft ignorantly commit a circle. There is no other no-
** tion of things in themfelves good or evil."

It is much harder to find the fenfe of thefe words, if tliey have
any, than to anlwerthe argument. Tlie defign of it is to prove
that there is no flandard whereby we may judge v/hat is good
and what is evil. The force of the argument amounts to this,
that there is no way how we come to know any thing to be
good, but by this, that it may be afcribed to God. But we
cannot know whether it is to be afcribed to God, unlefs we
know that it is perfe£l or good.

This is thin fophiflry, which I might eafily expofe, were it
to any j^urpofe to difcover the weaknefs of that, which its au-
thor was alhamed of and difowned. As to the rirfl propofition,
** That there is no other way to know whether any thing be
good ar evil, but this, that it can or cannot be afcribed to God."
I . The complex propofition is falfe ; for there are other wavs
whereby v/e may know things to be good or evil. And this
holds whether we take it in a phyfical or a moral fenfe. Wf
know that to be morally good which God enjoins i.s to do.
We know the M'ill of God in fome infiances, from the nature
God has given us ; and from thefe inflances our reafon can in-
fer others. As to phyfical good, we know thijigs to be good
or perfe6^, by acquaintance with the nature of things, and by
the felf-evident notions of peifeClion : for there are fome things,
fuch as dependence, fubiei.iion, and the like, which without
any reafoning about the mutter, \ve underdand to be imperfect

i68 AN INQ,UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

or perfe6\. As foon as we underftand the terms, and know
that a perfection is that which it is better for any being to have
than to want : and then what thefe particular words, depen-
dence, fubjed^ion, dzc, fignify. This alone overthrows his
whole argument. 2. The maxim which he fixes as a flandard.
That is good which may be afcribed to God, and that is not
good which may not be afcribed to him; if it is taken in its full
extent, it is falfe as to moral good, of which the only queftion is :
for it is certain, that it is good for man to be a dependent, a
fubjeiSt, &c. which cannot be afcribed to God. If it is taken
in a phyfical fenfe, it is not to the purpofe ; and befides, it
would even in this fenfe need fome caution.

As to his other propofition, ** That we cannot otherwife
know what is to be afcribed to God, than by knowing that it
is good or perfed," it can fcarcely be fuppofed to fpeak of good
in a moral fenfe ; and in any other fenfe it is impertinent. If
it is underftood in a moral fenfe it is likewife falfe, for we may
know that things which are not in their own nature moral per-
fe6lions, belong to God, fuch as power, omniprefence, &c.
If it be underftood in any other fenfe, we have nothing to do
with it.

The next head that he adds is, '* That all men will confefs
" that any thing may be morally evil and good alfo, and con-
** fequently any thing decent or indecent, moral or immoral.
** Neither, though there were things in themfelves evil, (if
** we do not apprehend other things inftead of them) can wc
*' have any inclination thereunto ? Otherwife the will could
" vvifh evil."

But r. Who will grant him (in any other fenfe that will be
fubfervient to his purpofe) that all adlions are indifferent ? I
know none but men of his own principles. 2. As for what he
pretends, that we cannot incline to that which is in its own
nature evil, unlefs it be under the notion of good, I fee not
what this fays for him ; it is enough that we can do that adion
which is evil and prohibited, yea, and which wc know is pro-
hibited, to conftitute fm and make the (inner deeply guilty.

But not to infili any further on this inconfiderable trifier,
whofe undigefted notions fcarce deferve the confideration we
have given them ; and much lefs did they become the awful
gravity of the place where they were delivered. There are
others of the deifts who think it not fafe to venture thus far :
b^caufe in effecfl this overthrows all religion and eftablilhes

plain

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEfSTS. i6g

plain alheifm : yet they mince the matter and lelTen fm as
much as they can.

Herbert goes this way, telling us the Tinner's excufe, that
" I, Ho?nines funt naiura fua fragiles peccaioqiie obnoxii,
** 2. Peccata hominum -non ta?n in-Dei contu??ieiia?77, qua?n tn
** pTopriam utilitataUf fuh bom alicujv.s apparentis cbtentu fieri
** pkrurnque ; ac licet in eo homines /alitor entur, nihil tamen t?i-
*^ fenjQ i7i Deu??i ammo patratum ejje* .'' That is, ** Men are by
** nature frail and liable to fin : and they do not (in out of con-
" tempt of God, but for their own profit, while fm appears
** under the (hew of good. And although in (his men are de-
** ceivcd, yet there is nothing done with any ill defign againft
" God."

A. W. in his letter to Charles Blount, pleads, " That though
** the offence is committed againfl: an infinite being, we are but
** finite creatures, who commit finf."

But now, as to the firfl of thefe reafons or excufes, I fear, if
it plead any thing, it calls the fault over on God. Are we to
excufe ourfelves from our frailty? Well, either we are made
fo frail that we are n<?t able to obey, or we are not ; if we are
able to obey, then where is the excufe when God requires no
more of us than what he gave us power to perform ? If we are
not able, then how came God to fubje6\ us to a law we were
notable to obey? If we have rendered ourfelves unable, is net
this our fault?

As to the fecond, '* that we do not fin out of contempt of th3
Deity, but for our own advantage." I anfwer, i. The princi-
ple that the finner goes on, according to this apology made for
him, viz. That the thing he does, though it crofles the Jaw of
God, yet makes for his own advantage, is highly injurious to,
and blafphemous againfl: God : for it fuppofes that God has bar-»
red man from what contributes to his happinefs, and fuppofes
that more advantage is to be kad by difobedience, which is a high
aggravation of the fault. 2. I will not grant him, that there
is no oppofition in the heart to God. What though there be
not plain, declared, dired and open hoflility; yet there is an
aiienaton of affe6lion, averfion from converfe with, and a ne-
gle6lof God to be found with all in more or lefs; of which their
a6iions are a fufficient proof.

As

* De Relig. GentiHum, Cap. 5, pag. 199.
t Oracles of Reafon.

X

fjo . AN INClUiRY INTO THE chap. x.

As to the third, " that an offence, though againfl: an infinite
God, is leflcncd by the confideration of the finner's being finite ;"
I anfwer, i. This excufe pleads for all fin alike: for let the
linner fin never ib deeply, yet he is finite fiill. 2. If this be
well confidered, it is perfe6ily ridiculous: for the meafure of
fin, its greatnefs is not to be taken this way, but the contrary;
for provided (he objeCl againli whom it is committed is infinite>
the meaner the pcrfon is that commits it, the greater fiill is the
fault.

But in very deed, all thefe attempts to extenuate fin, as
they are uielefs to finners,who are not judged by man, but God,
and not to be dealt with according to the eflimate he makes, but
that which God makes of fin ; fo likewifc they fmell rank oF
the want of a due regard for the honour of the Deity, and are of
the worfi. confequences to theworid,fince they tend to encourage
fin, open a door to impiety, and embolden finners to go on
in courfes they too much incline to. Befides, fuch excufes
for fin do but ill become perfons who make fuch an horrible
out cry againfl the doctrine of fatisfa6lion upon all cccafion.s,
as having a tendency to make forgiveneis cheap in finner's
eyes, and to embolden men to fin without fear. May not the
charc;e be here retorted? Who gives the greateR encouragement
to fib, he that aOTerts the neceffity of a fatisfadlion, or he who
extenuates fin to that degree as to encourage the finner to hope
he may get off without a fatisfaiStion ? I fiiall, to what has been
iaid, fubjoin a ^tw words from, a late difcourle. If the quotation
Utra long, the excellency of it will eafily excufe it; befides,
it h fo full to the purpofe, and leads fo dire^lly to that which
is the defign of what has hitherto been faid. ** Furthermore,
*' it is to be confidered, that the rights of the divine govern-
** ment; the quality and meafure of offences committed againd
** it ; and when or upon v/hat terms ihey may be remitted ; or
** in what cafe It may be congruous to the dignity of that go-
** vernment, to recede from fuch rights, are matters of fo
high a nature, that it becomes us to be very fparing in ma-
king any efiimatc about them, efpecially adiminidiing one.
Even among men, how facred things are majefiy and the
rights of governm.ent? And how much above (he reach of a
** vulgar judgment ? Suppofe a company of peafants that un-
** derltand little more than what is within the compafs of their
*' mattock, plough and fliovel, fbould take upon them to judge
** of the rights of their prince, and make an eflimate of the

" meafure

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 171

-' meafure of offences, committed agalnfl the majefly and dle-

** niry of government, how competent judges would we think

'* them? And will we not acknowledge the moft refined hu-

*' roan vinderftanding as inconpetent to judge of the rights oC

*• the divine government ? Or meafure the injurioufiiefs of the

*' offence done againft it, as the meaneft peafant to make an

*' ellimate of thefe matters in a human government? If only

** the reputation be wronged of a perfon of a better quality,

** hov^ ftrictly is^ it infilled on, to have the matter tried by his
peerSjOr pcrfons of an equal rank, fuch as are capable of under-

* Handing honour and reputition ! How would it be refented,

* that an affront put upon a nobleman, (houid be ccmmitled to

* the judgment of fmiths and coblers, cfpecially if they were

a

participss crhmnis*, and as well parties as judg

" When the regalia f of the great Ruler and Lord of heaven

and eartli are invaded, his temple violated, his prefencc

defpifed, his image torn down thence and defaced : Who

among the fonsof men are cither great, or knowing, or in-

** nocent enough to judge of the offence and wrong ? Or how

fit it is, that it be remitted u ithout rccompence ? Or what re-

compence would be proportionable ? Hov/ fuppofable is it, that

there maybe congruities in this matter, obvious to the divine

'* underRanding, which infinitely exceed the meafure of ours.t."

From what has been faid, it is eafy to underhand the im.por-

fance of the cafe. All mankind are involved in fin, lie under

this dreadful guilt, and that not in one, but in many infianccs.

Now if they are not fare that it may be removed, and know

not in whit v/ay this is to be done ; they mud either not take

up the cafe, or they muft be under continual difquietmento,

dread the iif^, and fear divine refentments. They can never

expe£l any revt/ards for obedience, and confequently they muR

jasi^uilh in it, and fo all religion that can be available is Ipfl.

Sect. IT.
Skeining the darktufs oj Natures Light as io Pardoiu

THE importance of the cafe being thuscleared, we now pro-
ceed to demondrate the infutticiency of nature's light to help

f>, . out

'^ " on:irers in the crime."
T '* Koyal prerogatives.'"'
X Dr. Hct'c Uvin^j Teir.ple, Part 2, pa?. 257,238, 239.

172 AN INC^UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

out of this ftrait. And that we may widiout fear affert it fo, is
evident from the enfuing confideration3 :

1. That light which failed men fo far, as io a difcovery of
the ilrait, is not likely to help them cut of it. If we under-
hand not where the difficulty lies, and how great it is, we are
never likely to folve it. Now it is undeniable, that a great
part of the woild underftood not the evil of fin, or of how vafi: a
coafi^ucnce it was to be alTured about the pardon of it. The
prevalent darknefs of their minds about the nature, holinefg
and JMilice of the Deity ; their own natures and relation to
him ; their'ignorance of the nature of fin ; the commonnefsof
it in the world ; their ftrong inclinations to it, and other things
of a like nature, kept them from apprehending the difficulty of
the cafe. But above all, the befi. moralifts amongfl the philofo-
phcrs, fuch as Socrates and Plato, feemed utterly unconcerned.
And the reafon is plain, their pride blinded them fo, that they
idolized their own virtues, and made no reckoning of their
fins.

2. They who had a little more concern about fin, faw fome-
what of the difficulty of this matter, but found themfelves at a
Icfs what way to relieve themfelves : and therefore they had re-
courfe, fome to philofophyj mufic and mathematics, for the
purgation of their fouls ; and others to lultrations, facrifices
and diveile wafnings, and 1 do not know what other fancies,
v/hich had no manner of foundation in reafon, no fu'jablenefs
to the nature of the difficulty, no divinev^arrant, and therefore
were never able to fatisfy the confcicnce, as to the finner's ac-
ceptance with God, and the removal of the guilt. 1 hefe be-
h;^ only the produtftions of their own imaginations, notwith-
Vranciingof all (hcfe, their fears continued, and they remained
under apprehenfiona that even deat!i fhould not terminate their
iiii^'ericSj as Lucretius hirnfelf fings,

. — /Jf r:xenr jUi confcia faSii^

Jt'ncmefuejis adhihet ftimnlo^y terretque flr^ellis,
Kec ^oidet intercay qui tenninm fjje rnalonim
I^cjfif^ nec qui Jit' penari4in denique fi^ns^
Atqiie eadcm melziit magis hcec in morle gravejcaiit^ ,
o» They wiio either thought fomewliat deeper of the cafe,
or at Icaltj feemed to do io, efpecially at tinies when the im-

preffions

* « But the mind confcious to itfelf of at^.ual guilt* by f::'ari:ig p'J.
«*■ iiilkn.-:ent appiiss flings to itfeif and terrifies itfclf with whips: not*

: PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 173

preifions they had of divine jnnice were quickened by fome
torrible plagues or judgments, had recourfe to things that vera
io far from relieving, that they really increafcd the guilt, I
iT.ean that abominable cuftom of human facrifices. This cruel
ciillcm almoft univerfaliy obtained in the world, if we may be-
lieve either profane or facred records ; of which Dr. Owen in
his treatife of VindiBive Juftice gives many inftances. They not
only facrificed men, but even multitudes of them* The inftan-
ces of this kind in the facred records are known. As to others,
Ditmpras quoted by Dr. Owen tells us, ** That the Normans and
** Danes, every year in the month of January did facrifice to
** tiieir gods ninety-nine men, as many horfes, dogs and
** cocks*." Clemens Alexandria quoted by the fame author,
tells what* the ufage of the nations in this matter was, and on
what occafion.' — " Jam vero cum cimtatts 6? gentes tanquam
** pejles invafijfent, fiva pojlularunt Ithamina ; & Arifloniencs
'* quidan Me/feniiiS-, Ithometce Jovi, Trecentos ma&avit, fe tot
** & tales rite facrificarc exijiimans, in quihus ctiam Theom-
** pompus rex Laced^monu7n erat^ pra^clara viclima' Tauri au-
** tern populif qui habitabant circa Tauricam Cherfoncjum, quof'
** cunque hofpites apud fe ceperint, Dianx Tauric^ cos ftatim
*^ facrificant finde inhofpitalia littora). Hccc tuet facrificta Eu'
*^ Tipides in fcena tragice deca?7tatf»" Here are no Jefs than
three hundred facrificed at once, and among them a king. Here
are Grangers facrificed. And any one that will read there will
find how ufual it was to facrifice their children and nearefl rela-
tions. The cuflom is barbarous, and fully fpeak out the de-
fpair of men awakened to a ferious confideration of fin, and the

darknefs

" does it fee in tlie mean time how any bounds can be fet to its fuf-
** ferings, nor what will at lafLhe the end of its punifiiment, and fears
" leftthefc fame fufferings fhould grow more grievous at death."
Dr. Owen de juiUtia Vindicatrice, Cap. 4. page 69*
+ " But when, like the plague, they had over- run all ftates and na-
" tions, they reqiiirerl cruel offerings. Ariftomenes the MelTenian facri-
*' ficed three hundred men to Jupiter Ithometes, among whom likc-
** wife was Thecpopyus king of the Lacedemonians, an illuftrious vic-
<^ tim. And the Tauri a nation in Crim Tartary, whenever they
" caught any (trangers among themj they iinniediateiy facrificed them
<* to Diana Tauric?, whence their fnores were proverbially ftilcd in-
•* l.ofpirable. Euripides reUici thefe facrifices of yours in a tragic^
** manner on the Itage."

174 AN INCl'Jn^Y INTO THE chap. x.

darkncfs of nature's light. If it could have pointed to any other
thing that could quiet iheconfcietice, civilized nations, iuch as
thoie among whom this cuiloin did prevail, would never have had
recourfe to it.

4. it is no wonder that men (liould be brought to fuch flraits;
for rhey wanted the knowledge of many things, that wete of ab-
iblute neceifuy to make tlicm once fo much as underftand v/hat
a caTe tiiey were in. They knew not» nor, ao hssbeen proven
could they know the rife of fm, and therefore could not knov/
what eilimate to make of it, nor what God would maike of it.
They knew neither the extent of the mercy nor juRIcejof God,
vvithout which it was impoilible to determine in the cafe.

5. The queftions that muft be refoived before the mind of a
fmner, that once underftands his Rate, can be iatisfied, are
io many, fo intricate, and fo palpably above the reach of unen-
lightened reafon, that it isfoclilli to pretend that nature's light wlii
or can fatisfy the- mind of any man in the cafe. Men may pre-
tend what they wiU, who either do not take up the cafe, or who
are otherwife themfelves fatished by divine revelation ; but they
who feriouOy, and without partiality or prejudice view the cafe,
\rili have ether thoughts. Who v/iil give me rational fatisfa6^ion
;:s to thofe and the like quefi ions? Whether, confidering the
jjTeatnefs of fi:^, the juftice, wifdom and holinefs of God, and the
honour of his government, it is confiftent to pardon any fm? If it
i>e, whether he will pardon all, many or (cw fins ? What, or what
degrees of fin he will forgive :* Whether he will pardon without
any reparation for the honour of his laws or not? Upon what
cr what terms he will do it? If he require reparation, what re-
paration, and by v/hom is it to be performed? How fhall we know
that he has p-irdoned ? If he pardon, whether will he remit all
p'jnifhment due to fin, or how much? Whether will he miercly
pardon, or will he over and above re-admit the finner to grace,
and as entire favour as before he finned ? Whether will he not
only p.irdon, but reward tlie finner's imperfe6\ obedience? Un-,
iefs ail of thefc are refoived, the dliticulty is not loofed. And
who will undertake to rcfoive them and give rational fatisfailion
that unaerfiands the cale.

6. Thefe queftions arc not only above the reach of man ; but
they belong not to him to judge and decide them. The oflence
is committed a^ainil God. He alone underftands what the con-
tempt of his authority, the diforder brought into his government
by fin, and the dliobedience of his creature amounisunto: what

is

PRINCIPl.ES OF THE MODERN DraSTS. 17J

is fit to be done in the caie, he alone is judge, at h'c ti-ibunal
it is to be tried, Man is too ignorant, too guilty, and too par-
tial in his own favour to bs allowed to judge ? Ko'.v where are
the decifions of Gcd in the cafe to be found ? Ai': they legible
in the works of creation or providence, or confcienccs cf men ?
In the works of creation it cannot be pretended. The works
of providence afford innumerable inflances of his jufiice, foirje
of his forbearing finners, even while they continue in tiieir
fin, and loading them without outward elfevfts cf his bol:^ity ;
But where is the finner, of whom we can fav, God lias for-
given him ? Or faid that he will forgive? The ccnfcienccs cf
men read them fometimes fad ledurcs of jufiice ; but never, if
they be not informed from revelation, any of forgivenei's.

7. All the pretences that are offered for relief in this cafe,
are abfurd, vain and inrignificant. They are si! reducible to
this one head. That God is infinitely merciful ; but this give;
not the lead relief. For,

1. I afk, muft God then of necefTity exercife mercy, cr h the
egrefs and exercife of this mercy rccelTary ? If it is not, b.:t
flill remains arbitrary, and in the pleafurecf God whether hi:
will pardon or not ; then I inquire, where is the relief pre-
tended ? Does it not all cvanifn ? Are we not as much at a lofs
as before, whether he Mill pardon, or how far, or upon what
terms ? If it is necelTary in its egrefs, tiien i inquire, how is
this reconcileable with the notion of merc)% tlut I'ecms to rcf-
pe6l voluntary and undef-srved acSlsof favour iliown to them, to
whom God was not obliged to fnow any ? Mow is this reconci-
leable to or confident with juftice, which is exercifed in pu-
nilhing finncrs ? By what arguments can this be made appear ?
Whence is it that there are fo many a«5is of jufiice, and no in-
flances known to, or knowable by the light of nature, of God s
having pardoned any ?

2. Mercy is either unlimited in its egrefs or it is not. If it is
limited and cannot be exercifed, but upon fuch and fi;ch pro-
vifos as make the exercife of it confnlent with God's averhon
to fin, and with the regard he has for the authority of his Jaws,
the concern he has for the honour of his government, and h's
jufiice, wifdom'and holinefs, then we are where we were be-
fore : For who can tell whether it be conHPiCnt with theie
things to pardon ? In wliat cafe and upon what prcvifos : if it
is not limited to any fuch qualifications, then I defire to know,
how this is reconcileable to his nature ? How is fuch mercy con-
fident with any exercife cf juftice at all ? What account can be

givcii

176 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

given of rfie direful effects of juftice, whereof the world isr
full ? By what means can it be reconciled to the holinefs of
God's nature to pardon impenitent finners ? What need is there
for any to guard againit fm, lince upon this fuppofition, all fm
lliall be forgiven ?

3. Is infinite mercy univerfal in its extent ? If it is not, then
I defire to know, what fins, what finners (hall be pardoned ?
How fliall any know whether his fins are the fins that are to be
pardoned ? If it is univerfal in its extent, and all fins muft be
pardoned ; then is there net a door opened for all fin ? How can
this be proven ? Why have we no evidence of this in God's
providential dealing ? Whence have we (o many evidences
of the contrary? If it is faid that mercy mufl: in more or lefa
be exercifed toward all, then I inquire, who tells us fo ? How
far fliall it be exercifed ? Will it pardon all or part ? Upon what
terms ? Will it not only pardon, but remunerate the guilty ?

4. I inquire who are the proper objects of mercy ? Or what
is requifite to conftitute the proper obje6t of it? Amongfl; men,
the proper obje£l of that mercy which belongs to governors, is
not fin and mifery. To fpare and pardon upon this fcore only,
is a plain vice in men efpecially in governors. But the object
of mercy is fuch fin and mifery, as is confident with the ho-
nour and good of the governor, government and the governed
to pardon. Now, if it be thus in this cafe, then I fee nothing,
but we arc v^here we were, and are plunged into all our diffi-
culties; and why it fhould not be thus, I fee no reafon. For
there is no man who knows what God is, what fin is, what juf-
tice is, that will fay it is confident with the honour, juftice, wif-
^om and holinefs of God to pardon impenitent finners, going
on in their fins. And when they fay, that his mercy only re-
quires him to pardon penitent finners, then this plainly fays,
that the exercife of his mercy is confined to thofe who are its
proper obje6\s, that is, not to miferable finners, for the impeni-
tent are mod fo ; but to thofe whom he may fpare, in a deco-
rum to his government and congruity to his other perfeflions.
And indeed this is what cannot in reafon be denied : and
when it is granted, then it remains a quefiion, not yet decided,
nor indeed determinable by reafon, whether repentance alone
is fufficient to this purpofe ?

5. The cafe of jufticc and mercy are quite different as to
their egrefs : For jufiice has refpecSl to a fixed rule, an univer-
fal rule, and requires that regard be had to it, in dealing with all
that arc under that rule : whereas mercy only is converfant about

par-

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEP.N DEISTS. 177

particular Inilances, according to the wifdcm and pleafurc of
him in whom it refides.

6. The inhnitenefs of either of thefe attributes, neither re-
quires nor admits, that there be intiniie numbers of inilances of ei-
ther: but that the afts of juftice and rtiercy be fuch as becomes
the infinite nature of God, when it is proper to exercife them, or
when th:^ wifdom, holincfs, jufticc or mercy of God require
that thev be exercifed.

But the deitts obje-SV, i. " That upon fuppofition that God ivili
" not pardon fin, there is no ufe of his mercy*." 1 anfwer.we do
nof iav he will not pardon fin ; but we fay, nature's light cannot
teli whether he will pardon it or not, or what is the cafe where-
in mercy takes place. We own its ufe, but we fay,^ nature'3
light cannot tell when and how it is proper to exercife it.

Again, it is pretended, '* That God is infinitely merciful, then
*' he mull as the leaft of its operations pardon the greateft of
" finsf." This is plainly denied, and we have told wherefore
above.

It is further pretended, ** That juOice has done its bufinefj,
" when it has condemned the finner, and then mercy brings him
" off |:" but this is grofs ignorance. It belongs as much to juf-
tice to take care that its fentence be executed, as to fee it pafTed.

Again, it is urged, " That though God be infinitely juft as well
** as merciful, yet his juQice is only as inherent, not as extenfive
*' as his mercy toward us: for \^e are punifhed only according to
** ourdefervings, but mercy is (hown us above our defervings^."
The firil partisfalfe. The very contrary affertion, viz. that juf-
tice is more extenfive, is true, as has been cleared above, if we
refped the number of obje^ls. The proof of it is a plain (ophlfi-n.
For I. It is not true that mercy beftows its effc6fs, which in their
nature arc above our defervings, fo more perfons than juflice
gives its effects, which are according to defert. 2. The effe^fls of
raercy are not more above deferving, than the effet^s of jufilcs
are according to it. 3. The effects of juftice are with infinite
exadnefs proportioned to defervings. And all that can be faid is,
that the e(Fe6ls of mercy arefuited to the nature of infinite mer-
cy, not that they are given to infinite number of perfons, or in-
finite degrees.

Further, it is pretended, '* That God with whom we have to
** do, is a Father who will not animadvert feverely upon his pe-

*' nitent

* Aikenhcad's Speech. -!• Ibid. J Ibid,

t A, W. in his Letter, Oracles of Reafon,
■ Y

:78 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. v.

*' nit^nt fon^." I anfwer, as he is a father, fo he is a rlghreous
judge. Firrther, though he be a father, yet he is not fuch a father
as men are, inBrrn, liable to failings, that needs his children,
tii^t may give tliem occafion or temptation to offend, that is of
t';c laiTie Jiature with them. And hence no firm argument can be
inferred from csny thing that is known in this matter by the light
of nature. Belides, the meaneft offence agbnd God is more
atrocious, than the greatefl offence againft one's natural father.
For which neverthelefs there is no forgivenefs, but puniihment
witiiout mercy, by the law of nations and nature.

Finally, all thefe are but generals, that m,ay well raife fuf-
picions in the minds of men, but can never give particular
idthJ-^ioii to any one man, as to his cafe, cr any one of the
particuhr diliicuhies that have been mentioned. They no more
latlsfy, than thofe notions that generally prevailed, of the placa-
bility of the Deity, which had their rife at fird; from revelation,
■Nvere continued by the neceffity of finners,who having challenges
for till, b-boo'-ed to take fane) uary fome where, and handed
down by tradition: But being general, and leaving men at a
lofs ablaut the means of atoning the Deity, were really ofnoufe
if not to keep men from running into downright defpair, and
keep them up in attendance upon fomewhat that looked
like religion ; but whereon the minds of fuch as really
underllood any thing of the cafe, could never find fatisfac-
tion.

There is only one thing that feems of any moment, that
is objected to all this; and that is, that nature's light which
dilcovers the fore, difcovers a falve for it, to wit, repentance,
to which we (hall anfwer in the fcliowing fe6\ion, that is
peculiarly defigned to confider this.

Sect. III.

Where:?! it is inquired whether Repentance is fujicicut to alone
Jcr Sin? Hozu far Nature's Light enables to it? What aj-
Jurance Natures Light gives of Par Jon upon Repentance.

IT now remains that we confider tlie only exception, whicii
is of moment, and that is, that repentance is a fufficient
atonement, tiiat natttre's light difcovers this, and fo we are

not

§ Blount's Reli?. Laici, pag. 69. Herbert de Relig, Gen. pag, 199.

fl

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 179

jiot left without relief. This is the more conuderable that
feveral Chriftians, yea divines of great note, and fomc of
them defervediy of high elleem, have fcen meet, in compli-
ance with their feveral hypothefes in divinity, to drop avler-
tions that fcem to favour this. We fhall firft propofe their
opinions, who alTert this, and then confider it.

The deiils go all this way as one mm. I Tnall offer one
for all, and it is Charles Dlount, who not only fpeaks the
i'enCCf but tranflates the very words of the learned lord Herbert,
He tells us then, " That repentance is the only kr.oy/n and
** public means, which on our part is required for fatisfyin|]j
** the divine juilice, and returning to the right way of ferving
** God*." And for clearing this, he premits to it thefe enfuing
confideratlons, ** i. That he that judgeth man is his Father,
" and doth look on him as a frail creature, obnoxious to Cm*
*' 2. That he generally finds men fin, rather out of frailty,
** than out of any defire to offend his divine Majefly.
" 3. That if man had been made inwardly prone to fin, and
** yet dePiitute of all inward means to return to him again,
** he had been not only remedilefs in himfelf, but more mi-
** ferable, than it could be fuppofed an infinite Gocdnefs did
*' at firft create, and doth Hill perpetuate hiiman kind.
" 4. That man can do no more on his part, for the fatisfvincr
*' of divine juftice, than to be heartily lorry and repent him
** of his fins, as well as to endeavour, through his grace, to
" return to the right way, from which through his tranfgrcf-
" fion, he had erred : or if this did not fuffice for the making
** of his peace, that the fupreme God by inflicting fome tern-
** poral punilhment in this life, m.ight fatisfy his ov/n juftice.
** 5. That if temporal punifhment in this life, v/ere too lit-
** tie for tlie fin committed, he might yet inflict a greater
** puniQiment hereafter in the other life, without giving eternal
*' damnation to thofe^ who (if not for the love ofgoodnefs)
** yet, at leaf!:, upon fenfe of punilTiment, would not fin eter-
** nally. Notwithftanding, fince thefe things may again be
*' controverted, 1 fiiail infill: only upon that univerfally ac-
*' kncwledged propcfition firfl laid dov/nf." This proposi-
tion, with the explications, he tranfiates from Herbert, only
has made fome fniall additions.

It

* Rsli^^Io Laici, pag, 68, 69, 70.

i Heibfrt dc Relig. Gcntil. pag. 199.

ti

l8o AN IKQ/JIRY INTO^^THE chap. x.

It is no wonder to fee thofe fpcak fo; but it is a little
more cdJ to hear Ciiriilians talk fo# One who would feem
very zealous for Chriftianity tells us, ** That the God of
" patience and confolation, who is rich in ruercy, would

forgive his frail olispring, if they acknowledge their faults,
'ii>ipproved the iniquity of their tranfgrefiions, beggtrd his
*' pardon, and refolvcd in earned: to conform their actions
*' to this rule, which they owned to be juli and right : this
" way of reconciiiaton, this hope of atonement, the light

** of nature revealed to them. He thai made ufe of this

** candle of the Lord, (viz. rcc:fon) fo fares to find his duty.
*' could not mifs to find alfo the way to recoriciliatlon and
** forglvenefs, when he had failed of his d'-ity*.'"' Much more
fpeaks he to the fame purpofe.

But it is flranger to hear divines fpeak fo. And yet we hnd
one telling us, '* That ths fame l)ght of nature, which de-
*' dares to us our duty, dilates to us, when- we have failed
** in that duty, to repent and turn to God with trufting to
*' Ills mercy and pardon, if we do fo and net elfe. We
^' do find it legil-dc in our hearts, that God is good and wife-
*' \y giacious to pity our infirmities, to confider our lofl
" eflate, and nccellaiy frailty, as that there is a God, and
*' any worlhip that is at all due to him f."

'1 o the lainc purpofe the learned Baxter fpeaks in his Rea-
fons of the Chrifiian Religion, Part j. Chap. 17. Dr. Which-
cct in his fermon on Aiils xli. q8. and others too large to quote.

But nov;, witliall due deference to thofe great names, 1 fhall
ttke leave to olier the following remarks, wherein 1 fhall clear
my own mind, and pfler tjic ^cafons on which I dident from
them.

J. I obf^rvc that the deifts fpeak more uncertainly about this
matter ; whereas thefe ('hrifiian writers feem more pofitive. The
deiPis i'eem not to want their fears that repentance may not
ferve vhe turn, and therefore they feem wiiiing to admit of tern--
pornl puniihments, and even punidiments after tim.e, only they
liave not will to think of eternal puniOiments ; as v.e heard from
IJerbert and Blount, who both fpeak in the fame words on this
h'cad. But the Chrifiian writers are pofitive. And I am jea-
40 ub the reafon is not, that they faw farther into the liglit of na-
ture

* Locke's Reafonphlenef'; of ChrilHanity, pag, 25^, 256.

f Mr. rlumphrey's Feaceable Difquifitious, Chap. 14. pag. 57.

Px^INClPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. iSi

lure than the deifis ; but that they lean more firmly to the fcrip-
ture revelation, which aiFures us that penitent (inners (hail be
forgiven. Though I muft add, the fcripture no where fays that
penitent nnners Ihall be forgiven upon their penitence, as that
which is fufficient to atone the juftice of God. And to fpeak
plainly, however confident thofe worthy perfons are, that they
have read this do6lrine in the book of nature, I dare be bold to
aitirm that they had either failed in the difcovery, orftammered
a little more in reading their leflbn, if they had not learned it
before-hand out of the book of the Scriptures ; though the
thing feems, when they have read it there, to approve itfelf fo
much to reafon, that reafon cannot but alTent to it. It is well
obfervcd by one of thofe authors, with whom we now manage
this debate, " That when truths are once known to us, though
** by tradition, we are apt to be favourable to our own parts, and
*^ afcribe to our own underftanding the difcovery of what, in
*• truth we borrowed from others, or, at leaft, finding we can
** prove, what at firft we learned from others, we areTorward4o
'* conclude it an obvious truth, which, if we had fought, we could
*' not have miffed. Nothing feems hard to our underftandings,
** that is once known ; and becaufe what we fee with our own
** eyes, we are apt to overlook, or forget the help we had from
*' others, who firft fhewed and pointed it out to us, as if we
** were not at all beholden to them for that knowledge ; for
" knowledge being only of known truths ,* we conclude our
** faculties would have led us into it without any alTifiance ; and
** that we know thefe truths by the ftrength and native light
** of our own minds, as they did, from whom we received them
** by theirs, only they had the luck to be before us. Thus
** the whole ftock of human knowledge is claimed by every
** one, 33 his private pofl'effion, as foon as he (profiting by
*' other's difcoveries) has got it into his own mind ; and fo it is;
*' but not properly by his own fingle induftry, nor of his own
** acquifition. He (iudies, it is true, and takes pains to make a
** progrefs in what others have delivered, but their pains were
*' of another fort, who firft brought thofe truths to light, which
*' he afterwards derives from them. He that travels the roads
*' now, applauds his own ftrength and legs, that have carried
*' him fo far, in fuch a fcantling of time, and afcrlbes all to
** his own vigour, little confidering how much he owes to their
** pains, who cleared the woods, drained the bogs, buiit the
** bridges, and made the ways paifable ; without which he
** might have toiled much with little progrefs, A great many

thinjrs

iS2 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

" things which wc have been bred in the belief of from our cra-
** dies (and are notions grown familiar, and as it were natural to
** us, under the gofpel) we take for unqueflionable obvious truths
** and eafily demonftrable, without confidering how long we
'* might have been in doubt, or ignorance of them, had reve-
lation been filent. It is no diminifliing to revelation, that
'•* reafon gives its lufFrage too to the truths revelation hath
'"' dii'covered. But it is our miRake to think that becaufe
reallm confirms them to us, we had the firft; certain know-
*^ ledge of them from thence, and in that clear evidence we
** now poffefs them*." How applicable this excellent dif-
courfe is to the cafe in hand, will appear from what we de-
fign to fubjoin on this head. Though after ail, that which the
Icripture delivers, and reafon coniirms in this cafe, is not,
*' That repentance is fufhcient to atone the jufiice of God, or
tnat God will pardon a penitent finner, merely on the ac-
count of his penitence," which the deifts* cafe requires. The
icripturcfplainly teach the contrary, and thofe learned pcrfons,
or fome of them at lead who own them, believe according to
the fcriptures, the contrary, which makes a confiderable dif-
ference betwixt them and the deifts ; though in this cafe, they
feem to fpeak the fame things. But that which the fcripture
alferts, is, ** That penitence is a qualification fuitable to a fin-
** ner to be pardoned, and that it ig not fuitable to the wifdom
and juPiice of God to pardon one, who is not 'forry for for-
** mer offences, and refolves to obey for the future*." Reafon
confirms this indeed, but it is not to the purpofe.

2. But to come a little more clofe to the purpofe ; this re-
pentance, which is pretended to be fufhcient, con fids of two
^^'cX?,f forrow for the offence, and a return to oheditnu. This
fair, part, a return to obedance, what is it ? Nothing, but
only a performance of the duties we were antecedently bound
unto by the law of creation, which only receives a nev/ de-
nomination from its relation to an antecedent deviation, or
lin. This denomination adds no new worth to it, nor does
the relation whereon it is founded. Wherefore we can never
reafonably fuppofe, that there is any great matter in this,
that can atone for the tranfgrclfion. It is well if it obtains
approbation as a part of our duty. But no reafonable man
Ci..i pretend that it aioncs for any part of our fin.

3. Though
* Lor.'^e's Pvesfoaabkncf., of Chridianity, pag. 279, 2&c> 281.

1

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 183

3. Though nature's light difcovevs our obligation to that
tluty, which now, becaui'e fin preceded, muft be called a
return ; yet it is a queftion, if nature's light is able to bring
a finner, that has once gone away, to fuch a return as is
neceffary. For i. We have above proved that nature's light
is d€fe6live as to motives lo obedience, as to the difcovery of
particular duties, and much more is it defe6tive as to motives
to a return : becaufe there is more required to encourage a
finner to come back, who has once offended, than to engage
him to continue. There is a difcouragcment arifrng from
fear of punilhment, and falling (hort cf any reward he might
have expedted, upon the account of his fm to be removed,
and that is not eafily done, as (hall be fhown. 2. Befides,
r.ot only difcouragements lie in the way of a return, but
crofs inclinations, averfions from duty, and inclinations to fm.
Now 1 am nor fatii/fied that nature's light can remove, or
dire6l how to remove thefe ; of which we may fpeak more ful-
ly in the next chapter. So that as for this part of repentance
we neither fee of what ufe it is as 10 atonement, nor do
we find it clear that nature's light can bring any to it.

4. The ftrefs of the bufinefs then muft lean on this forrov/
for by-gone tranfgreffions, that is the other part of the com-
pofition. But here I am fur e it will be readily granted, that
every fort of furrow for fjn will not ferve. If one is on-
ly grieved for the lofs he has fuftained, the hazard he has
run himfelf into, and the evil he has to fuffer, or fears at
leaft for his ofFencc ; this can be available to no man. Where-
fore though nature's light may bring a man to this, and has
oft done it, yet this fignifies nothing in the cafe.

5. The forrow, that only can be pretended, is that which
ariles purely, or at leaft, principally from concern for the
diihonour done to God. New as to this forrow, it is to bs
obferved, that it is not any ad^ion cf curs done in obedience
to any command : but it is a palhon, in its own nature un-
eafy, as all'forrow is, though fuitable to a finner, and, upon
the fuppcfition, that he is fo, ufeful perhaps. And it rcfults
from the joint influence cf prevailing love to God, his law
and authority, and a clear convi6\icn of fin's having injured
his honour, and our being, on this account, obnoxious.

6. It is not eafily to be granted that nature's light can
bring any man to this forrow. Since i. It is evident that
the temper men are naturally of, is quite contrary to that which

give?

iS4 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, x,

gives rife to focli a forrow. We are naturally averfe from God,
as {hall be made appear afterwards/ and are not under the in-
fluence of any fuch prevalent love to him, and it is not eafy to
prove that nature's light is able to remove this natural averfion
of the heart from God : but of this more in the next chapter,
2. God can never appear amiable to a finner, if he is not re-
vealed as one ready to forgive. We cannot be forrovvful for
our fin, if we are not ferioufly convinced that we have finned,
and fee the demerit of fin. If we are convinced that we have
finned, and deferve punifhment, we cannot have prevalent love
to God, which is requifite to give life to this forrow, make
it run in the right channel, and proceed on thofe accounts,
which will make it acceptable to God, or available to us, un-
lefs he appear to us as ready to forgive, which nature's light
doth not difcover.

7. I doubt if nature*s light calls us to repentance, I allow
that there art feveral things obvious to nature's light, which
may be faid to drive us to repentance, becaufe they ferve
to difcover to us thefe things whereon this forrow follows,
bind the obligation on us to that duty, which, becaufe of
the preceding fin is called a return, and ferve as argu-
ments to enforce the compliance, provided we had a call or in-
vitation to return, I mean a new call. For clearing this, we
are to obferve that, were man innocent, and guilty of no fault,
and had his obedience no imperfe£\ion necelTarily cleaving to
it, and were he under no fuch inconveniency as might make
him dread wrath, or fear his obedience might be rejected ; in
in that cale a difcovery of the obligation hs lies under to duty
were a call and invitation fufficient, asfecuring him, at leaf! as
to to the acceptance of his duty. But where there are thofe
things in his cafe, fin and imperfe6\Ion cleaving to the duty, and
the performer chargeable with guilt on both thofe accounts, in
order to engage him to duty, there is requifite a new call or invi-
tation, fecuring him againfl thofe grounds of fear, and giving
him ground to expe(^ acceptance. Now it is fuch a call as this,
tljat only can bring the finner to repentance. And this we de-
ny that nature's light gives ; though we own that it difcovers
many things, that may be faid in fomie fcnfe, to lead to repent-
ance : Becaufe, upon fuppofition of fuch an invitation, they are
improveable as arguments to enforce compliance with dutv.
Thus, if God invite me back again, his goodncfs difcovercd
in the works of creation and providence, invites to go to him,

and

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. iSj

and all the direful evidences of his anger againft finners per-
fuade the fame thing : and therefore may be faid to lead, or
rather drive to repentance ; becaufe they have a tendency thrt
way in their ov/n nature, and arc capable of fuch an imprcve-
rnent : But ftlll it is only upon the foregoing fuppoHtion.

8. To make this matter yet a little more clear, 1 gran tthatthe
light of nature difcovers finful man to be ftiii under an obligation
to obey God. As long as God is God, and man his creature,
man is under a tie to fubje6lion, and God has a right to man's
obedience. This obedience to which man is bound, after once
he has finned, muft be called a return. Further, the light of
nature teaches, that if man had yielded perfe6^ obedience, he
ihould not have done it in vain. Acceptance, at leail, he
fhould have had, and what other reward the goodnefs of God
thought meet. And that man fuflains a great lofs by fin, that
interveens betwixt him and his expc6lations from the goodnefs of
God, and befides,expofes him to the hazard of his juft refentment,
which, if it is feen, as by nature's light in fome meafure it
may be, will occafion forrow. Further, nature's light will
teach that the more deeply we fin, the more we have to fear,
and therefore out of fear and a regard to our own intercQ and ex-
pedation of being freed from thofe feverer judgments, which a
progrefs in fin draw on men, may be induced to return. Now
all this nature's light difcovers: but neither is this forrow, which
favours of fome regard to ourfelves, but of little or none to God ;
nor this return, which is not that cheerful, cordial obedience
that God requires and accepts, of any avail in the cafe. No
man, that knows what he fays, will pretend, that fuch a for-
row or fuch a return is fufficient to atone the juftice of God for
by-gones, or even obtain acceptance for itfelf, which has fo
much of love to (elff and fo little of that which refpeds God.

9. But the repentance that is available in this cafe is a forrow,
flowing from prevalent love to God, and grieving, if not only,
yet principally for the wrong done to God, and a cheerful fol-
lowing of duty upon profpe6t of God's being a rewarder of it.
Now to call or to make up a fufficient invitation to a finner, to
fuch a repentance, it is requifite that i. God be reprefented
in fuch a way, as a finner that fees himfelf guilty, can love him,
delight in him, and draw near to him. But this he can never
be, if he is not reprefented as one with v/hom certainly there is
forgivenejs, 2. It requires further, that God be reprefented as
one, who will accept of finners' obedience, notwithftanding 01

Z theic

iS5 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, .t-

their defert of wrath for former difobedience, and this requires
fi'ui that he be a God that forgives. 3. Further, it is requifite,
that he be reprefented as one, that will accept of obedience, not
only from one that has finned, but that implies fin and imper-
fection in it. Now this cannot be, if he is not known to be one
that is plenteous in ??iercy and zvill abundantly pardon. Now I
fay the light oi nature gives no fuch difcovery of God: and
therefore gives no call or fufficient invitation to this repentance.
10. Nor will it help out here, to fay, that the light of nature doth
reprefent God as placable, one tvho may be pacified : for, fhould
I grant that it does io^ yet this cannot invite to fuch an obedi-
ence, fo long as I. It Is left a qucftion, whether he be a6lu-
ally reconciled, or pofitively determined to forgive ? 2. Efpe-
cially confidering, that he has not pointed to, and pofitively de-
clared on what terms he will be appeafed. Yea 3. Since
moreover he has given no vifible inftance, knowable by the
light of nature, that he has forgiven any particular perfon. But
4. On the contrary, the world is full of the mofl terrible ef-
fe6is of his difpleafure, and thefe falling mod heavily on the
bef^, even ihofe who go farthefi in a compliance with duty. In
a word, thcfe dark notions of a placable God, which yet is the
utmoli that unenlightened reafon can pretend to, are utterly in-
fumcient to bring any of the children of men to that repentance
we are now in qucfl of; it is fo funk, and as it were quite ob-
fcurcd by crofs appe.»rances. And all that can reafonably be
faid, is, that in the providence of God there is fuch a feemlng
cortrariety of good and evil, that men know not what to make
of it, hut are tolTed by contrary appearances. And of this we
have a fair acknowledgment by one, who, befides that he was a
perfon of great learning, was not only a great ftlckler for the
natural difcoverics of this placability, but one of the firfl broach-
ers of it, being led to it by the peculiar hopothefis he main-
tained and advanced in divinity, 1 mean the learned Amyrald.
After he has aflerted the natural difcoverics of this placability,
and alleged that they lead to repentance, yet fubjolns — ** But
*' there are (fays he) motions in the corrupt nature of man
*' which tVufirates the effevSt, if God did not provide for it in
*' another manner (that is, by revelation). For man files from
*' the prefence of God through fear of punifhment, and cannot
'* hinder the prevalence of it in his foul , fo that as a man af-
** frighted beholds nothing ftedfafily, but always imagines nexi-
** occafions of terror, and reprefents hideous phantafms to him-

«* felf;

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 187

'" ielf ; To we are not able to allow ourfelves leifure to confider
*• attentively this difpenfatlon of the goodnefs of God towards
** the wicked, nor thereby to aflure ourfelves cf obtaining mercy
** and pardon. As a lewd wretch, whofe confcience bears him
<* witnefsofraanyheinouscrimes, though helliould perceive ibrric
** connivance in the magiftrate for a time, and his judge (hew
** him fome countenance, cannot but be dilUufifal of him, and
** i'ufpe*!:! that he does but defer his puniflriment to another tiiiic,
** and alTuredly relerves, it for him ; efpccially it he hath an
" opinion that the magiflrate is not fuch an one as hinifelf, but
** abhors the wickedneQes committed by him. Now are we
** univerfally thus principled, that as we have thofe vv'hom we
*' fear, lb we never bear good will toward them of whom
** we have fome diffidence. And the diflrudiag the good
" will of any one being a ftep to fear, is likewife by the fame
** reafon, a degree of hatred ; unlefs the difirufl proceed to fuch
** a meafure as to be an abfolute fear ; for then the coldnefs
** of affe^lion is turned into perfett hatred. Wherefore mm
"' thus diftrufting the good will of God towards liim, confe-
'* quently can have but a very flight affed^icn to him ; yea, he
*' wiii even become his enemy, in as much as the dillruft iii
•* this cafe will be extremely great*." Thus far he goes. Now
methinks this quite overthrows the placability he had before af-
ferted difcoverable by the light of nature, at leaft as to any ufe
it can be fuppofed of for affuriag finners of pardon, cr inviting
them to repentance*

1 1 . But to go a ftep further, I cannot iee that the light of nature
is able to give us any affurance of this placability* Where is
it in the book of nature that we may read this truth, that God
is placable? Is it in the works of creation? No, this is not pre-
tended. Not can it be, they were all abfolved and nnifned bv?-
fore the entrance of fin, and cannot be fuppofed to carry on them
any impreiTions of placability to finners. is it in the works of
providence? Yes, here it is pretended. And what is it in the Vvorks
of providence that is alleged to evince this placability? Is it that
God fparec finners for fome lime, and not only fo, but beftows
many outward good things on them, whom he fpares? Yes, this
3£ tliat whereon the whole flrefs of the buiinefs is laid. But I
cannot fee the force of this to alfure us that God is placable.
For I. It is certain that the nature of the things do not infer

certainly

* Amyrald of Religions, Part 2. Chap. 17. pag, mihij 253, 254.

rS3 AN INQ^UIRY IxN TO THE chap. x.

certainly any fuch thing. Forbearance is not forgi /enefs: nor
cioes it intimate any defign to forgive. It may be exercifed,
where there is a certain defign aud fixed purpofe of punifiiing.
And what relation have a few ofthofe outward things, whereby
love or hatred cannot be known, unto peace and reconciliation
with God? It i?;, I know, pretended, that even this forbearance
is a fort of forgivcnefs, and that all (he world (baring in it, are
in fome fort forgiven. So Mr. Baxter fays. If this learned
perfon or any other has a mind to extend the notion of pardon
10 far as to include even reprieves under that name, we cannot
hinder : but it is certain, that no abatement of the punifhment,
far lefs the difTolution of the obligation, which is that ordinarily
meant by pardon, do neced'arily follow upon, or is included in a
delay of punifrinient. The llownefs in execution, which may
proceed upon many grounds, hid in the depth of divine Vv'if-
dom fronm us, may be more than compenfated by its feverity
when incomes. Leaden Jeaif as fome have ufed the expreffion,
may bs compe^i fated by iron hands* And when men have feri-
ouUy weighed outward good things, which are thrown in great-
e(i plenty in (lie lap of the moft wicked, and are full of vanitv
and commonly enfnare, they can fee but very little of any mercy
defigned them thereby. And if any inference toward a placa-
bility is deduciblc, which I profefs 1 cannot fee, I am fure that
it is far above the reach of not a few, if not moft of mankind,
to make the dedu6^aon and trace the argument. And lb it can
h?. of no ufe to them. 2. All thofe things are conliRent with
a {^vAqxicz landing unrepealed and never to be repealed, if ei-
ther fcripture, which tells us that God exercifes muck long fuf-
/:-n ;?/;•, and gives plenty of good things to the vejfcls of zuratk ;
or reaibn, which affurcs us that perfons continuing obfiinate to
the b(^ in fin, cannot evite judgment, m?.y be believed. 3. As
^-hcre is nothing in the nature cf the thuigs that cJin afcertain us
cf God's placability, mucli lefs is tlicrc any in the condition of
*Mz perfon, to whom this difpcnfation is exercifed. Were
tlicfe bellowed on the moll virtuous, or were there an Jncreafe
of them, as perfons proceeded fn virtue, and came nearer and
nearer to repentance ; or were there on the other hand a conti-
nued evidence of wrath and implacability towards obftlnate fin-
ner'-.; thio then would fee m to fay fomewhaf. But all things are
quite contrary, tlie worfl have the mo(l of them, and the beft
have commonlv Ic^ll of them. What will the hnncr fa}', that
God is inviting nie by this gcodnefs to virtue ? No, if I fhould

turn

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 189

turn virtuous I might rather expe6l to be worfe dealt with. That
is a bootlefs way for any thing I can ice in it. Does not the
fcripture and experience tell us, that thus things go, and that
fuch ufe finners have made of this difpenfation ? And fo dark
is it, that even they who had God's mind in the word to unrid-
dle the myftery, have been ihaken at it fo far, that they have
been upon the brink of apoflafy, while they faw the way of fin-
ners profper, and that they who hate God wtit exaltzd* How
then can unenlightened reafon draw fuch inferences as thefe
learned men pretend ? Although I have a great veneration for
thefe learned men ; yet if it would not appear prefumptuous in
one fo far below in all refpeds, to cenfure his fuperiors, I
would take the liberty to fay, that in this matter they are guil-
ty of a double miftake : Firil, In that they meafure men's abi-
lities by a wrong ftandard. What fuch men as they may trace
by reafon, many men are under not only a moral, but even a
natural incapacity to difcover. It is certain, befides that vail
difference which is in the capacities of men, from different edu-
cation and circumflances, whence it is morally impcffible for
one who wants that education, and other occafions and advanta-
ges which another has, to go that fame length and trace thefe
difcoveries, which the ether who had education and cccallon
may do : there is likewife vaft difference even in the natural
abilities of raen (whether that arifes from their bodies or fouls I
difpute not now, nor is it to the purpofe ; for if from either it
is ftiil natural) fo that one has not a natural capacity to trace
the truths that others may, who have better natural abilities :
and fo it is naturally impoflible for the former to make the dif-
coveries which the other may. And I fear not to add, that if
any fuch inferences may be drawn from thefe preraifes, asthofe
learned perfons pretend, yet many are under a natural impoili-
biiity ; and the moft under ir.fuperable moral incapacity of tra-
cing thofe difcoveries. And if it be allowed that any man^
without his own fault, is under an incapacity of making fucli
deductions, about the placability of God, from thefe difpenfa-
tions of providence, which 1 think cannot modcOly be denied,
the whole plea about placability will prove not only unfervice-
able to the deifts, but, if I miftake it not, unmeet to maintain
that ftation for which it is defigned, in the hypothefis of the
learned afferters of this opinion. Another miiUke I think thole
perfons guilty of, is, that men whofe minds are not enlighten-
ed by revelation, may poffibly trace thofe difcoveries, v^'hich

thev

190 AN INCtUiRY INTO THE ghap. x.

they who are guided by it may read in the book of nature.
4. I add, ifthefe things whei'eon they infift, as difcoveries of
this placability iti God, ferve to laife any fufjiicions of that
fort in the minds of men, and this is the moft that can be rea-
lonabiy pretended, for demonftration they do not amount unto,
they are quite funk by the contrary evidences of God's feveri-
iy ; which muR have (o much of force, in as much as they moft
commonly befall the moft virtuous, which heightens the fufpi-
cion. And befides, as we heard Amyrald obferve, the minds
of finners, who are convinced in any meafure of fin, who are
yet the only perfons that will think themfeives concerned in
this matter, are much more inclined to entertain fufpicions
Jhan good thoughts of him, whom they have oftended, and who,
as their cqnfciences affure them, hates their offences. 5. That
v/hich puts the cope-lfone upon our mifery, and concludes us
imder d.^rknefs, is that nature's light has no help to guide us
pver thefe dimculties laid in our way, from any known inflan-
ces of any perfons led to repentance by thefe means, or par-
doned on their repentance. So that upon the whole, I cannot
iee fuflicient evidence of this piacAbility in the light of nature.
12. If it is alleged here, that if God had no defign of mercy
',n fparing the world, it is perfe6^ly unintelligible why he. did it.
In anfwer to this, it is to be obferved,that we do not lay that God
had no defign of mercy in fparing the world, but that this his
forbearance of the world is not a fufficient proof and evidence
of this defign; and that nature's light can give no falisfying
account of the reafon of this difpenfation of God. So dark was this
to fuch as had no other light but that of reafon, that the moft
part laid afide thoughts of it as a thing above their reach; and
the more thoughtful knew not what judgment to make, but were
confounded and perplexed in their thoughts. They underflood
not what occount was to be made of God's producing fo many
fucceilive generations of men, and tolling them betwixt love
;nid hatred, hope and fear, by fuch a Grange mixture of good
and evil ; elfeds of his bounty and evidences of his anger.
Yea fo far were they confounded, that fbme of them came the
icngth to fet God afide from the government of the world.
No Icfs a perfon than Seneca introduces God, telHog good
men, ** That he could not help their calamities." Anti Pli-
ny acrafes God, under the notion of nature^ of no good de-
fign, " Natural y quafi magna ^ f^va merctde contra ianta
^^ pisb muntrii !)fum ; ita ut ncnjatisfii ^Jiimarty parens 7ndior

** hominL

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. igi

" hominij an triftior noverca fuerit ;" id ejl, " Nature has {o
** cruelly counterbalanced its largeft gifts with horrible evils,
** that it is hard to fay , whether it is not a fad or cruel ftep-reother
** rather than a kindly parent to man." So that in fa6^, men were
thus fpared and left in this dark condition, as to the reafons of
God's difpenfations, is evident from experience. The reafons
of this condud are to be fought in the depth of the wifdom and
fovereign juftice of God. Chriflians whoare found in the faith,
will own, that all who belonged to the elecSiicn of grace could
not have come into being, if the world had not been thus fpared.
They will own that the world could not have been preferved in
any order, without thefe efJec^s both of bounty and feverity,
whereby fome reftraint was put on the lufis of men, and feme
government kept up among them, and they were kept from
running to fuch a height in (in, as would have made it impciTi-
ble for God, with any confiftency to his juftice, holinefs or wif-
dom to have preferved the woild, till his defign in its prcferva-
tion was reached. And it may be faid further, for the fatisfac-
tion of Chriftians (for the deifts have no concern in this ac-
count, which is bottomed on the revelation they deny). That if
God had fecn meet to make all that belonged to Adam's cove-
nant at once, they could not have refufed to ccnfent to the
placing their happinefs on that bottom whereon he placed it in
the tr3nfa6\ion with Adam, and could not have condemned
God for executing the fentence upon all im.mediately upon the
breach of it. And therefore I think they have no reafon to
quarrel God's keeping them out of hell for a while. Further,
God in his wifdom, by leaving fo many in this dark cafe for fo
many ages, has let them fee the ihortnefs of their wifdom todlf-
entangle them from that mifery, whereunto by fin they were in-
volved. It was in the wifdom of God, that the world by wif-
dom knew not God, Finally, this fliould make us welcome the
gofpel, which only can difpel the darknefs we are under, as to
the whole ftate of matters betwixt God and us, and lead us to
life and immortality, and mercy, pardoning mercy, which the
dim light of nature could never difcoverto us.

Now if we confider what has been above difcourfed, it will
be found that we have made confiderable advances towards a
derifion of that which is in debate.

We have cleared what that repentance is, which with any
fhew of reafon can be pretended available in the prefcnt cafe.

We have evinced that the placability of God, of which fome

^ ^ talk

jgz AN INQUIRY INTO THE cha^. x,

talk, were it difcoverable by nature's light, is not fufficientto
bring men to this repentance.

Further, we have made it appear, that the evidences of this
placability brought from nature's light are not conciufive.

But were all this given up, which v/e fee no caufc to do, the
principal point is ftill behind, viz. ** Whether nature's light can
** afcertain us that all penitent finncrs fliall be pardoned upon
** their repentance," This the deiils maintain, and we deny.
Their all'ertion, ** that the light of nature alTures us that peni-
** tent finners upon their repentance (hall afl'uredly be for-
*' given," is that which v^e (hall next take under conlideration,
and demonftrate to be groundlefs, falfe and abfurd, by the enfu-
ing arguments.

J. I reafon againfl: it from the nature of pardon. Forgive-
nefs or pardon is a free a6i of God's will. It is a freeing of the
finner from the obligation he lies under to punifliment, by vir-
tue of the penal fanflion of that righteous and jul^ law which
he has violated. All divine laws are unqueliionably equal,
juft, and righteous, and their penal fanclions are fo too. Cer-
tainly therefore God may jufWy infli6l the puniQiment contained
in the fand^ion of the law upon the tranfgrelTors ; and confe-
quenlly, we may without fear infer, that to relieve him from
that penalty is a moft free ad, to which God was not ncceffarily
obliged. And indeed, though all this had not been faid, the
thing is in itfelf clear ; for we can frame no other notion of for-
givenefs than this, ** That it is a voluntary and free aft of
grace, which remits the punilhment, and Icofes the fmner from
that punilhment he juilly deferved, and which the lawgiver
might juftly have infli<Sled on him." Now this being clear, we
infer, that fuch a(Sts cannot be known otherwife than, either by
revelation, that is God's declaring hirnfelf exprefsly to this pur-
pofe, or by the desd itfelf, fome pofiiive a6l of forgivenefs,
which is the effe^Sl of fuch a purpofe. The deifts difown and
deny any revelation. And for any e(Fe6l declarative of fuch a
purpofe, we fhall challenge the world to produce it. There
never was, nor is any one perfon, of whom we can certainly
afiirm, upon the information only of nature's light, that God
has forgiven him, either upon repentance or without out. And
if there were fuch perfons, it would not bear the weight of a
grneral conclufion, that bccauie God has done it to them,
therefore he will do it to all, in all other inllances.

n. I reafcn againU this fuppofed conftitution from the ex-
tent

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 193

tent of it, that God will pardon all penitent finners. If
this is not faid, he pardons none upon their penitence : for if
any penitent (inner can be fuppofed to remain unpardoned,
why may not all ? Befides, if a penitent finner is punilhed, then
it mull be upon fomewhat elfe than penitence, that he who
is pardoned obtains remiiTion. For if mere penitence had been
fufficicnt, a pentient could not have fufFered. Now if all pe-
nitent (inners are forgiven, and nature's light affures them that
they fhail be forgiven, then the extent of this conftituiion is
very large. For, i. It makes void the penal fanction of the
law as to all fins, however atrocious they are, if the (inner is
only a penitent. 2. It extends to all ages, places, and genera-
lions of men, that ever have been, or (hall be in the world.
3. It reaches to all forts of perfons, even thofe who are in
a capacity to introduce the greatefl diforders into the govern-
ment of the world, as well as the meaneft offenders. Well
then, the delfts mart miintain that it is thus enatSled, and this
a6l or conflitution is in all this extent publicly declared
by the light of nature, fo that all may know it. 4. It reach-
es to all fins, part, prefent, and to come; they fhall all be
forgiven, if the finner does only repent. Now agalnft fuch
an cxtenfive conftitution, we offer the following confidera-
tions:

(i.) All wife governors, who have any regard to the
honour of their laws, aurhority, and governments, ufe to be
very fparing in indemnifying tranfgreffion. And no won-
der they fliould ; for wife and juft rulers are not wont to e-
na6t penalties, but in proportion to offences- And therefore a
paffing eafily from them tends to make tranfgreffion cheap, and
weaken the conftitution, and fo diiToive the government. Now
God is no lefs tender of the honour of thofe laws, which ena6l
nothing but what is the tranfcript of his ov/n righteous nature,
and the oppofite whereof he has the deepeft abhorrency of, as
contrary to the fame. And can we then reafonably fuppofe him
to be fo lavllfi of forglvenefsas to eftablifh it in fo ftrange an ex-
tent? I believe it will be hard for any thinking man to judge
fo.

(2.) In all well ordered governments pardon is a particular
26t of grace, reftri«5led to fome time, place and perfcn ; yea and
crimes too: and therefore Is never cxtf!^nded fo univerfally as
here it is, and if it is to the purpofe, mull: be aif^rted. So that
the common rcafon of mankind declares agalaft fuch aconflitu-

A a tion ;

104 AN IxNQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

tlon : for what is or may be pretended of impenitent finners be-
ing excluded, is in very deed, no refiric^ion of the law indem-
nifying tranfgrefTors of whatever fort, that are but willing to be
indemnified. For impenitent finners are they only who have
no will to be pardoned, or who will not accept of favour. Now
to indemnify all that are willing to be pardoned is a very odd
confiitution. And before I afcribe this to the wnfdom of the
great Ruler of the world, I mud fee better reafons than I am ^
ever like to fee in this cafe.

(3.) No wife government ever enabled pardon of fuch an uni-
verfal extent, without further fecurity for the honour of the
government, into a perpetual and (landing Jaw. Pardon and
acts of grace area p" t cf the fovereignty of the governor:
and however he may make them very extenfivc fometimes ; yet
he always referves it fo in his own power, that it lliall after-
wards be voluntary and free to him to forgive or not as he Ihall '
Ice caufe,

(4.) Sucha conditution is efpecially irreconcileable with wif-
dom and equity, If it is extended to tranfgreflions not yet com-
mitted ; for in that cafe it looks like an invitation to fin.

(5.) And this binds more ftrongly, if the perfons are ftrong-
iy inclined to fin.

(6.) More efpecially fuch a conftitution is never to be recon-
ciled with wifdom, if it is univerfally made known and publifh-
ed without any provifion made for the fecuring of the honour of
the law, againlt any abufe of fuch grace. Now I defire to
know if nature's light difcovers fuch an a6l and declaration of
grace. Where is there any care taken, or any provifos in-
ferted in the declaration that can evidence the regard which
God has for his laws, and fecure againft the abufe of fuch kind-
nels? Indeed the fcripture difcovery of mercy to penitent fin-
ners, on accourjt of Chrifl's fatisfaction, fully removes all thofc
difficulties wfiich otherwife, fo far as T can fee, are never to be
removed : And therefore I can never fee how fuch a declaration
coiiid be made without the concomitant difcovery of a fatisfa6\ion
to jufiice, and reparation of the honour of the lawgiver and law,
and fecurity againR abufe of grace. Remarkable to this purpofe
are the words of the learned and judicious Dr. How : ** That
** prince would certainly never be fo much magnifi.ed for his
** clemency and mercy, as he would be defpifed by all the
** world, for mofi remarkable dcfetMs of government, that
*' ihould not on4y pardon whofoevcr of his fubjeds had ofTend-

** cd

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 195

<* ed him, upon their being forry for it ; but go about to pro-
*« vide, that a law (hould obtain in his dominions, through 2II
** after time, that whofoever fhould offend againft the govern-
** ment, with whatloever infolency, maligniiy and frequency,
*♦ if they repented, they (hould never be punilhed, but be taken
*' forthwith into highefl favour. Admit that it had been con-
** gruous to the wifdom and rightcoufnefs of God, as well as his-
" goodnefs, to have pardoned a particular fmner, upon repent-
** ance, without latisfad^ion ; yet nothing could have been more
** apparently unbecoming him, than to fettle an univerfal law
** for all future time, to that purpofe, that let as many as would,
** in any age to the world's end, affront him never fo highly,
'* invade his rights, trample on his authority, and tear the con-
" ftitution of his government, they fhould upon their repentance
** be forgiven, and not only not be puniflied, but be moft high-
<* ly advanced, and dignified." Thus far he. In the fubfequent
paragraph he learnedly and judicioufly fhews the difference
in the gofpcl propofal of mercy to offenders, from this fuppofcd
cafe of forgivenefs without fatisfa6fion.

3. 1 inquire, whether is it poflible that there may be any crime
fo atrocious, that it may be poiTible for God, in a congruity with
vhis perfedion, to punifh, notwithf^anding of the intei vention of
repentance? If there may be any fuch, then certainly it is not
merely on account of repentance that fm is pardoned : and fo a
penitent cannot always be fure of forgivenefs. Further, confi-
dering how grievous and finful every tranfgreflion of God's law
is, how can 1 be fure what fins are pardonable upon repentance
and what not? If it is not poflible tor God to puniili any pe-
nitent, then I. I would inquire what fo great matter is there in
repentance, that can bind God up from vindicating his lionour
againft affronts already offered? 2, To what purpofe was the
penal fa6fion fince, in the cafe it was defigned? For when the
law is tranfgrelTed, it may not poflTibly take place but the ex-
ecution is inconfiftent with the nature of God. 3. How will
this impoffibiiity ever be proven ? Repentarice hath nothing in
it fo great to infer it : for in repentance no more can be alleged
but a return to duty antecedently due. And as to this, we are
unprofitable fervants. And Chrifl has told us what reafon tells
us alfo, that v/e defcrve no thanks for it. And as tor the otlier
part, forrow for by-gones, it is the ncccLfary relult of that re-
gard
* Living Temple, Part 2. pag. 327.

igS AN INCLUIRY INTO THE cha?. x,

gard to the Deity, and knowledge of our own fin, that is like-
wiib our own duty. Now what is there, in all this, that ftiould
be ruppofed to be of {o great worth, that it muft inevitably ftop
the courle of juflice ?

But here it may be obje6led, not only by deifts, but fome,
who are very far from favouring them, ** That pod cannot caft
•' away from his love and felicity any foul, which truly loveth

him above all, and which fo repenteth of his fin, as to return

to God in holinefs in heart and life.*"

I anfwer, i. The fuppofition that a finner convinced of fin
can repent without fome fecurity given as to pardon, can love
God above all, and fo repent, as to turn to holinefs in heart and
life, appears fo me impoffible. Much lefs is it poffible that an
unconvinced finner can repent. The reafon is plain, a clear
convid^ion of fin inevitably lays us under the decpeft fear of
Gcd, and dread of puniihment from him, which not only calls,
out that love, but draws on hatred, or at leafl, flrong averfion ;
as vre heard the learned Amyraid well obfcrve in the words be-
fore quoted. Now it is certain, th^t fuppofe one impoflTibility,
twenty will follow. 2. If the thing is not impoffible, which I
think it is, yet certainly it is a cafe that never happened, and is
never like to happen. 3. Suppofing it poffible, it is a very bold
afTertion, that no crime, how atrocious ioever, would juftify the
inflicting of the penalty contained in the righteous ian6\ion of
the law. 4. Much Icil then is it hard to fuppofe that it would
judify God's denying any reward to the finner, that he has i'o
finned. And if it is granted that penitence does not ncceflari-
]y reflore to a profpe61 of reward, all religion and encourage-
ment to it is loft. 1 cannot forbear quoting again the accurate
and judicious Dr. How's words, who after he has fhown that our
offences againft God incomparably tranfcend the meafyre of
any otience that can be done by one creature againft another,
prefently fubjoins, ** Yea, and as it can never be thought con-
** gruous, that iuch an offence againfl: a human governor,
** ihould be pardoned, without the intervening repentance of
** the delinquent; fo we may cafily apprehend alfo the cafe to
'* be fuch, 35 that it cannot be fit, it Ihould be pardoned on that
*' alone, without other recompence f:" whereof if any fnould
doubt, 1 would demand, is it, in any cafe, fit, that a penitentdelin-

qucnt

f J^axtcr's ReafonsofChria, Relig. Fart i. pag. 184, 18B.
T Living Tenaple, Part 2, psg, 240.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 197

oucnt againft human laws and government ftiould be puniftied,
or a proportionable rccompencc be exa6^ed for his offence not-
withftanding ? Surely it will be acknowledged ordinarily fit ;
and who would take upon him to be the cenlor of the common
juftice of the world in all fuch cafes ! Or to condemn the pro-
ceedings of all times and nations, wherefoever a penitent offender
hath been made to fuffer the legal puniftiment of his offence,
notwilhftanding his repentance? How Grange a maxim of go-
vernment would that be, That it is never fit that an offender, of
whatfoever kind, (hould be punilhed, if he repent himfelf of his
offence ! And furely, if ever, in any cafe, iomewhat elfe than
repentance be fitly infiflcd on as a recompence, for the viola-
tion of the facred rights of government, it may well be fuppof-
ed much more fo in the cafe of man's common delinquency and
revolt from God.

4. I reafon againft this pofition, from the confideration of the
imperfection of this repentance, which, as it takes place amongft
fmful men, is guilty of a double imperfection. Our forrow and
our return are imperfect, in refpe6l of degrees. Our relation
to God and his to us requires the higheft, the moft perfe6l love
and the moft cordial obedience. No lefs will anfwer our ob-
ligations. And our forrow, if it is required, muft be fuppofed
likewife to be fuch as refults neceffarily from fuch a love. Now
what can be more evident than this, that none of the children
of men love God as they ought, and with that Intention and
vehemency, which anfwcrs their original obligation ? And con-
fequently their forrow and obedience can never come up to it :
for they being the refult of this love, can never go beyond the
principle, which influences them. Again, our return is liable to
another imperfedion, even a frequent interruption. The cafe
is not thus, that we only once, through infirmijy, make an ef-
cape ; but even after our fuppofed return, it muft be allowed
that there will be after-deviations. And hence it becomes a
queftion, how can we expect acceptance in our returns? Kow
can our repentance, which anfwers not the demands of the law,
and our ties to duty be accepted for itfclf ? And if fo, much
more may it be a qucftion, how can it be allowed fufficient to
atone forother tranfgrefFions, yea, how can it be fufficient to atone
for tranfgrcffions, which it takes no notice of? For there are fuch
fins as by the light of nature we are never likely to reach the
conviction of ; and therefore it is impoffible we (hould forrow
for them, or repent of them? However men may pleafe them-

felves

iqB an inquiry into the chap. x.

felves with a fancy of the fufficlency of their repentanre ; yet a
iinner, that undeiftands his own cafe, will never be able to fa-
tisfy his own confcience in this matter.

1 know it is pleaded, ** That we have a harder province
** to adminiftcr than even the angels thetufelves ; they not ha*
*' ving lb grofs a body as we have, nor expofed to i'o much evil
*' as we are. But God he knoweth our frame, and upon that
** account is not extreme to mark what is done amifs. A crea-
•* ture, as a creature, is finite and fallible : and yet we are
** not the moft perfe(?t of God's creation. Now, for fallible to
** fail, is no more than for frail to be broken ; and mortal to
** die. Where there is finite and limited perfection, there
'* is not only a poilibility, but a contingency to fail, to err, to
** be miftakcn, not to know and to be deceived, And where
** the agent is fuch, there is place for repentance. Re-
*^ pentance is that which makes a finite being failing, capa-
** bie of compaffion. If repentance did not take efFe6l, it
** would be too hazardous for a creature to come into be-
** ing. If upon a lapfe, an error, or miflake, we fhould be
" undone to eternity, without all hope of recovery ,* who would
** willingly enter upon this ftate *?" Thus fpeaks Dr. Wich-
cot.

To this plaufible difcourfe we anfwer. Either this reafoning
proceeds upon the ftate of things, according to the covenant of
grace, and refpe£ls them who have laid hold on it, or it does
not. If it does proceed on this footing, we fay it helps not the de-
ifts : but if, as it feems, it be extended further, then I fhall make
the following remarks on it. i. Although we have here maoy
things prettily faid, yet I cannot but deeply diflike the dif-
courfe, bccaufe it aims at the extenuation of fin, and pleads its
cxcufe from our frailty. Now, befidcs that this bears hard up-
on the Author of our conflitution, as if he had made it unequal
to the laws he impofed on it, it is a fociifii argument, becaufe
the cafe may be as much exaggerated on the other hand by Uie
reprefenting the greatnefs of the lawgiver, the equality of the
]?.ws, and the ability of man, at leaft in his firft make to obey.
And the one wilt not fignify more to give us hope of forgive-
nefs on our repentance, rhan the other will to make us defpair
of it. 2. It feems to refleft on God's difFerent rondu6t with
the angels that finned, who had no place allowed them for re-
pentance :

* Dr. Which cot's fdefl Sermons, Part 2. Serni. 2d, on Afts xiii.
38. pag. 322, 323.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. tgg

pentance: for iheir frame was finite, and fo frail and failable.
The little difference from the grofl'nefs of our bodies, if man
is not fuppofed corrupt, and his body inclined to evil, makes
no difference that can fatisfy ; for ftill we were under no ne-
ceflity of finning from our conftitution, if it is not fuppofed to
be corrupt. But to pretend that man was made corrupt, carries
our frailty too far, to make it God's deed. We cannot plead
in excufe, any defects in our conftitution, that God put not there.
3. It condemns all human laws that fpares not penitent tranf-
greffors. If it be faid, that they are under a neceflity to do it ; I
anfwer, whence does this neceflity arife ? Is the honour of the
divine law lefs dear to him, and of lefs confideration than the
honour and rights of human conftitutions and governments £*
But further, I defire to know, will neceflity juftify the punifli-
ment of the penitent ? If not, then here it doth not juftify : if
it doth, who will aflure me that there is not as great a neceffity
for this courfe in divine as human governments ; at leafl in
fome inftances ? And if in any inflancc the puniftiment of a pe-
nitent may take place, who will condefcend where it may, and
where not ? How likewife can it be faid that penitence fecures
pardon? Further, 4. I fay dire6^1y to the argument. If divine
Jaw s are as much adjufted to man's power, as the conflitutions
and laws of human government are, (and that they behoved to
be fo, with refped to his power in his firft conftitution has
been made appear) then it is no more hazardous to come into
being, than to enter into human fociety, where frail man may,
for a word or a deed, forfeit his own life to juftice and all the ad-
vantages of it, and beggar his pofterity, and that without any
profpe(5l of relief by his repentance. If it be faid, that the
punifliraents arc greater in this cafe ; I grant it : fo are the
laws too, and confequently the tranfgreffions ; and fo likewife
are the advantages of obedience ; and without an injurious re-
flexion on God, it cannot be denied that the laws are, as well
at leaft, attempered to man's abilities wherewith he was created
and fubjedled to them. 5. I do not fee how it can be injuflice to
infli(Sl a juft puniftiment upon ti-anfgreirors,and fuch of neceffity,
that is, which is included in the fanftion of the divine laws.
Nor does repentance make that execution unjuft ; which, with-
out it, is allowed not only juft, but indifpenfibly neceffary.
This I might largely ftiew, but others have done it before *.

5. The
° See Specimen Refutationis Crcllii, pag. 100, lOJ, & fequ.

2:oo AN INQ.UIRY INTO THE ghap. x.

5. The falfehood of this propofition may be further evi-
denced from the nature of the juftice of God, that feems ne-
cefl'arily to require that fin be puniftied. For clearing this,
1 (hall make the cnfuing obfervations : in doing which wc
ihall aim at fuch a gradual progreffion as may fet the matter in
the beft h'ght.

(i.) Juftice Hriclly taken, is *' that virtue of the rational
nature, whofe bufinefs it is to preferve, maintain, and be a guar-
dian of the rights of rational beings." It is commonly defined
a ** conftant and abiding or fixed will of giving to every one
what is their right or due." Whence it has been debated, whe-
ther in man there is any fuch thing as felf-juftice ; becaufe, ac-
cording to this account of juftice, it feems to be reftri6\ed to the
rights of others. And this reftriclion has countenance given to
it from that common maxim, that volenti nonfit injuria^ y which
is founded in this, that a man is fuppofed capable of parting,
without wrong, with his own rights, and confequently is not
capable of injuftice towards himfelf. It is true, man has no
rights, which he may not deprive himfelf of by his ovi\i
confent. Yet fince man has fuch rights, though they are but
derived ones, as alfo his being is, as he cannot deprive himJelf
of without fault, I fee not but even fuch a thing as felf-juflice
may take place among men : but whatever the cafe be as to
men, there is certainly in God to be allowed fuch a thing as
felf-juftice. For clearing of which, I obferve,

(2.) That God, being the fountain of all rights, has certainly
rights, which he can by no means deprive himfelf of. Ke has
•a right of dominion over the creature, and to the creature's fub-
jeiSlion, that he cannot part with. As long as there is a rational
creature it is, by its being, inevitably fubje£t to its Creator,
and he cannot part with that right he has to govern it. ** With
** the fupreme Proprietor, there cannot but be unalienable
'* rights, infepirably and everlalllngly inherent in him : for it
*' cannot be, but that he, who is the fountain of all rights mud
** have them primarily and originally in himfelf; and can no
** more fo quit them, as to make the creature abfolute and inde-
** pendent, than he can make the creature Gcdf." Hence in-
evitably there muft be allowed felf-jufiice, which is nothing
clfe, fave that fixed determination of the divine v/ill, not to

pari

* " No injury is done to one who is willing."
+ Living Temple, Part 2. pag. 270.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 20I

part with what is his own unalienable right, and confequently
xo maintain it.

(3.) This juflice, in order to maintain God's right of govern-
ment, obliges him to enadl penal laws as the meafure of the
creature's fubje6lion and obedience. A fubjedt cannot be
without laws. And where the creature is capable of tianf-
greffing, laws cannot be fuch without penalties. Without thefe,
they were rather counfels or advices, than laws ; and the per-
fon to whom they are given is left at will to be fubje6l, or not.
And if God fhould thus leave the creature without a penalty,
then upon tranfgreflion, the tranfgreffor has dipt entirely out
under the dominion of God ; for he is not ad^ively, in thatin-
flance, fubje6l to God. And neither is he paffively lubje(^, if
there is no penalty. So that by this means God has forfeited or
Joft his right, which is impofliblc. There is no other imagina-
ble tie of fubjeflion, but either the preceptor the penal fanCtion
of the law, whereby rational creatures, as to their moral de-
pendence can be bound. Now if God part with the one, by
remitting the penalty, orenaiSling laws without it, and man call
off the other by difobedience, the creature is, at leaft thus far,
independent. Which how abfurd it is, is eafy to fee. Where-
fore, in cafe the creature is made, we cannot but fuppofe a law
muft be made to it. And if the creature is capable of violating
that law, there mud, for preferving that right, which God has
to the creature's fubje6tion, be a penalty annexed to that law.
Whence itfeems evident, " that God did owe it to himfelf pri-
** marily, as the abfolute Sovereign and Lord of all, not to
** fuffer indignities to be offered him, without animadverting
** upon them, and therefore to determine he would do fo*."

(4.) The creature being made, jaftice requires that it fhould
be under fuch a law as is ena6\ed with a penalty, and fuch a lav/
being now enadted, there feeras to arife a double necefTity for
the execution of the law, in cafe of traafgreifion. The one
arifingfrom the reafon of the law, the other from the law itfelf :
Since upon the grounds already laid down, the law was necelTa-
ry ; the fame grounds enforce the execution of the law : for
when the cafe falls out, for which the law was provided, it is
not merely the law or coni^itution itfelf, but the execution of it
that fecures the end. When the creature difobeys, he has in fo
far renounced an a6\ual dependence on, and fubjeC^ion to the
lawgiver and law : and therefore it feems of neceflity that either
as to thefe actions he is not fubje£i, or he muft be fubje6l to the

B b penalty.

* Living Temple, pag. 271.

202 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

penalty. Again, as the reafon of the law enforces the execu->
tlon, fo does the Jaw itfelf. For the law being once made, juf-
tice requires that its honour be fecured either by obedience, or
by the fubje6\)on of the tranfgreflor to the punifliment.

(5.) To proceed yet further, if the law is not executed, the
deTigr;, even the principal defign of punifhment in this cafe, is
no? reachtd. It is not the only or main defign of punifhment or
penal fan^^ions to reclaim the offender, or benefit by-(tanders,
or fecure the community. It is true, the penal fan61ion, or Jaw
enacting the penalty, is of ufe to deter from trangreffing, and
{o is of ufe to the community, and all under the government ,
but the execution, if the fan6\ion is punifhment after this life, is
cf no advantage to the offender, nor is it inflru6\ive to by-iland-
ers, or the refl of the community, who do not fee it: wherefore
thefe are not the principal ends of punifhment. Though it is
beobferved, that any public intimation that the penalty fhall
not be inili6fed, could not but be of the worff confequcnce to
the community, as rendering it vain as to all that ufe which it
has of deterring perfons who are under the law from fin. Vet
I fay, thefe are not the principal ends of punifhment ; but the
fatisfadion of the Lawgiver. For the cafe is not here, as it is
in human governments, where the governor and government
are both coni'iltured for the good of the governed, v/hich there-
fore mufi be the chief aim of all laws : but on the contrary, the
governed are made, and the laws made, and penalties ena£fed
for the Governor, who made all things for himfelf- And con-
fequently, the principal defign of punifliment'is the fecuring;
and vindicating his honour in the government. Nor is this
any fuch thing as anfwers to private revenge amongft men.
*' But that wherewith we muR iuppofe the blefled God to be
*' pleafed in the matter of punifliing, isthe congruity of the thing
** itfelf, that the facred rights of his government over the world
** be vindicated, and that it be underfiocd how ill his nature
" can comport with any thing that is impure, and what is in
*' itfelf fo highly incongruous, cannot but be the matter of his
*' deteftation. He tal^es eternal pieafure in the reafonablenefs
*' and fitncfs of his own determinations and a6\ions ; and re-
'* joices in the works of his own hands, as agreeing v/ith the
** apt, eternal fchemes and models, which he hafh conceived
** in his own moO: wife and all-comprehending mind : fo that
** though he defirelh not the death of /inner s^ and hath no de-
** light in \\-\Q Ju firings of his alBicled creatures, which his

*' immenfe

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 203

** HXimcnfe goodnefs rather inclines him to behold with cora-
'* pailion ; yet the true ends of puniiliment are lb much a grea-
** ter good, than their eafe and exemption from the fuftcrings
** they had deferved, that they mufl rather be chofen, and
** cannot be eligible for ^ny reafon, but for which alfo they
** are to be delighted in, i. e. a real goodnefs, and conduci-
" blenefs to a valuable end inherent in them."

(6.)A5Juftice in a ftritt fcnfe, of which hitherto we have
rpoken, as it denotes that re6\itude of the divine nature, which is
converfant about, and confervative of thedivine rights, pleads for
penal laws and punilhment; {o likewife juflice in a large fenfe,
as it comprehends all his moral perfedions, holinefs, wifdom>
faithfulnefs,&c. and anfwers to that which is amongfl men called
miiverfal juftice, pleads for the fame : for fo taken, it compre-
hends his holinefs and perfe£l deteflation of all impurity; in
rcfpeil whereof, he cannot but be perpetually inclined to ani-
madvert with feverity upon fin ; both becaufe of its irreconcilca*
blc contrariety to his holy nature, and the infolent affront, which
it therefore dire<Slly offers him ; and becaufe of the implicit
and moft injurious mifreprefentation of him which it contains in
ir, as if he were either kindly or more indifferently affe6\ed to-
wards it: upon which accounts, we may well fuppofe him to ef-
teem it necelTery for him, both toconflitutc a rule for punifhing
it, and to puni(h it accordingly ; that he may both truly a6f his
own nature, and truly reprefent it. Again it includes, thus ta-
ken, his governing wifdom, which requires indifpenfibly that
be do every thing in his government fo as he may appear like
himfelf, and anfwerably to his own greatncfs ; fo as to fccure a
deep regard for his government, and all the parts of the confti-
tution. In refpe61 whereof, it might be fhown, that the puniili-
ment of fin, or the execution of the penal laws folemnly enact-
ed is neceffary. Vv''ifdom takes care that one attribute do not
quite obfcure another, and will not allow that he gratify mercy
to the detriment of juftice. Again, it includes his faithfulnefs
and fincerity, which feem pledged in enabling the penahy for
its execution. Kow is it confident with them to ena6f fuch fe-
vere penalties, if he may remit them without any reparation
made for the wrong done? Any one that would fee more to this
purpofe,befides others who have difcourfed of Vindi6iive Judice,
may perufe the learned Dr. How's Living Temple, Part 2.
Chap. 6aad 7, who has learnedly difcourfed and improven this

fubjed :

204 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.;..

fubjec^: to whom we own ourfelves indebted for much light in
this matter.

Thus it feems evident, that whether we take the divine jufticc
in this lafl and largeft notion, as it is comprehenfive of all the per-
fediions of the DeitVj or in the former and firi6l notion as it im-
ports a virtue,whofe province it is to take care of the prefervation
cf the incommunicable rights of the Deity, and vindicate their
honour; it feems neceflarily to forbid the remiffion of (in with-
out the puniihment of the tranfgrelTor, or a reparation of the
injured honour of the Deity.

If it is alleged, that by repentance the fmner returns to his
fubjedion, and fo the honour of God's goverment is repaired.
I anfwer, that upon fuppofition of the Tinner's return be-
ing a fufficient reparation of the honour of the Deity, there
ivould indeed be no necelTity of punifnment : but this is the
queflion, and the obje6^ion begs what is in queflion. The
principles now laid down, (hew that juftice, however taken,
muft take care to preferve and vindicate God's honour in cafe
of tranfgreffion. The penal fan6tion of the law tells us, that
the puniQiment of the tranfgrelTor is that which wifdom and
juitice have fixed on, as proper for this end. There is no al-
ternative, puniihment or repentance. The law makes only
mention of punlOiment. When therefore the obje6^ors fay that
repentance is fufhcient, we deny it. They do not prove it,
jior can they. God, to whom alone it belongs to determine
what is necelTary for the vindication of his own honour, mufl
determine the reparation ; we cannot. Yea, it were prefump-
tion in angeis to do it. God has fixed upon puniihment : if
he allow of any thing elfe, the light of nature does not tell it.
Nor is there any thing in the nature of repentance, as has been
above cleared, that can induce us to think it is fufficient to
this purpofe. The mod virtuous, who muft be fuppofed the
penitents, if there are any fuch, meet with as heavy punilh-
nients in this life as any, which fhews, at leaft, that God looks
not upon their penitence as fatisfa6lion.

6. Againfi this propohtion we reafon thus, Every man is
endued wiih a power to repent when he pleafes, or he is not.
To affert the latter, were to yield the caufe ; for it matters not
to the (inner, whether repentance be a fufncient atonement or
not, if it be not in his power to repent, Befidcs, it is a queftion
in this cafe of confiderable difficulty, whether it is confident
^A'ith the perfedlions of God to give this power, till once his

honouy

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 205

boncur is fecured by a fuitable reparation for the injury done it
by fin. If it is in the finner's power to repent when he pleaf-
cs, then again 1 infift,

Either God without impeachment of his juftice may inflia the
puniftiment contained in the fan6\ion of the law on the finner,
notwithftanding of his repentance, or he may not. If he may, then
the deifts can never without revelation be fure that he will not
Infill the punifhment, which is what we fay : nor will it mend
the matter, that though God, without impeachment of his juf-
tice, may punith the repenting finner, that he cannot do it with-
out injuring his mercy: for what is contrary to of one God's
attributes, is fo to all. And moreover, the juftice of God in
particular requires that each of the divine attributes have their
<^ue.

But if it be faid, that God cannot in juftice punilh the re-
penting finner; then I defire to be fatisfied, if this does not
evacuate and make void the penal fandtion of the law ? For if
every man hath a power to repent when he pleafes, and this re-
pentance ftops the execution of the fentence, I do not fee but
any may offend without hazard.

All that can be faid is, that God may furprize man in the ve-
ry aa of finning, or fo foon after it, that he ihall not have time
to repent, and fo man's hazard is fufficient to deter him from
fin.

But to this I anfwer, that the confideration of this hazard can
never have much influence on man, to make him refufe the gra-
tifying of his fenfesj in which he finds fo much pleafure, fo
long as in the ordinary conduft of providence he fees that God
very rarely takes that courfe of fnatching away finners in the
very a6l of fin, or fo foon after, as to preclude repentance. It
is not fo much what God may do, as what he ordinarily does,
that is of weight to determine men, efpecially when they have
fo flrong motives to perfuade them to the contrary, as the
impetuous cravings of unruly lufis are known to be.

This argument gives us a clear view how much the deift's no-
tion of pardon upon mere repentance favours fin ; and how un-
reafonable the outcries of Herbert and Blount, repeated ad
mauftavi, againf^ the maintainers of fatisfa^ion really are.
They fay, the doftrine of fatisfa^ion makes fin cheap. But
whetber do they who fay that fin cannot be pardoned without
the finner's repentance and fatisfaftion, or they who afTert rc-
pentence alone fufficient, make fin chcapefi ?

7. I

2o6 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

7. I further argue againft this do(^rIne, that this conftitufion,
grant or allowance of repentance, in cafe of tranfgreflion, is
either co-eval to the law, and has its rife as the law hath, in the
relation bctwixf God and man and their natures, as being a ne-
ceffary refult of them ; or it is a pofterior eftablilhment, and an
aft of free and gracious condefcendence in God, to which he
was not neceffaril}^ obliged. If this lart isfaid, then I fay, this
could not be known, but by a revelation or fome deed of God,
expreffive of his mind in this matter. The firft is denied by the
deifts ; and we defire them to produce the work of providence
whereon it is legible, that God without any reparation to his
juftice for the injury done him. by fin, will pardon the fmner
upon his penitence and admit him to blifs. For though wc
fliould admit that fome works of providence fingly taken,
without obferving others which have a contrary afpe6^, have
fomewhat like an intimation of a placability, which we fee
but little reafon to do ; yet we deny positively that there is
any that fpecilies the terms, or particularly condefcends on re-
pentance, as that whereon he will be pacified and reconciled to
finners. And if any will pretend to draw this from them, 1
wlfii they would elfay it, and let us fee of what form their pro-
cedure will be ; perhaps they may prove that it is not confiftent
with God's attributes to pardon an impenitent finner : but if
they think thence to infer, that therefore it is confiftent to his
attributes to p.irdon one merely upon his penitence, they may
make good the confequence if they can ; they will find it hard-
er than it appears.

If the former is faid, that this conftitution is co-eval with the
law, and is as much a neceiVary refult of the nature of God and
man, and their mutual relation, as the law itfelf ; befides what
has been faid to d^monilrate the folly of it, let thefe three
things be ronfidered :

(i,) ThedeiRs do, and arc obliged to fay, that man is not now
from his birth more corrupt than he was at iirft.

(2.) Man at his original was, and confequently according Xo
them, ftill is endued with power fuHicient perfectly to know
and obey the law he is fubjected to. To fay that he was fub-
jected to a law, which he was not able to know or obey, is to
accufe the Deity of folly and in jufiice ; as has been made
appear.

(3.) The law to which man is fubje6^ed, is exa6lly fuited to
God's great defign, his ov/n glory and man's happinefs.

Thefc

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 207

Thcfe being granted, I conceive it evident, i. That nothing
can be faid more injurious to the glorious perfe<Slions of God,
than that any of them gives ground of hopes, far lefs afTurance
of impunity to man, if he break thefe laws, which are equally
fuited tp promote God's glory and his own good, and which he
wanted neither power to know nor obey. 2. Such a grant
would be of no lefs dangerous confequence toman, becaufe it
could be of other ufe, than to tempt to a violation of ihofe laws,
which ft is fo much his intereft to obey.

But fome may fay, it would be difcouraging to man to think
he were undone, if he difobeyed in the lead. I arifwer, this
could be no rcafonable difcouragement if he was potTeffed of
power perfed^ly to know and obey the law he was fubjedted to.

Again, it may be faid, that it was neceflary there lliould be
fuch an encouragement to man ; becaufe, though he was er-
trufted with fufficient power to know and obey the law of God ;
yet he was for trial expofed to a great many flrong and forci-
ble temptations to dlfobedlence.

For anfwer to this ; fuppofe two men equally able to know
and obey the law ; the one knows he may obtain pardon on
repentance, the other beleives himfelf irrecoverably loft if he
tranfgrefs ; I defire the obje6^or, on fuppofition that both were
attacked with a temptation equally ftrong, to anfwer me feri-
oully, I. Which of thofe two would in all probability fooneft
yield ; he that faw a probability of efcape or he that faw none ?
2, Since the keeping of the law was highly advantageous to
both, which of the two is in the beft ftate ; he who has this
ihong motive to obedience, that he is ruined if he difobey, or
he that halh this encouragement and enforcement of the tempta-
tion to difobedience, that he may difobey and efcape ? Nor
vvrill they evade by faying, that this conflitution was knowable
before, but was not taken notice of till fin fell out : for if it
might be known, all the inconvenlencies mentioned will fol-
low. Befides, if it was taken notice of after the firfl fin, it
might be a temptation to all fucceeding tranfgreffions.

In fine, if this allowance of repentance be faid to have the
fame rife with the law, and be equally neceflary from the na-
ture of God and man and their mutual relation ; it is a plain
difpenfation with the law, and that equally made public, be-
ing notified in the fame way as the law is; which how it is con-
fiftent v\ ith the wifdom, hoiinefs, and juHice of God, I know
not,

8, To

2o8 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ghap. x.

8. To add no more on this head, if this ftory about the fuf-
fjciency of repentance lies fo open to the light of nature, whence
was it that it was fo little difcerned ? The name of it, in the
fenfe and to that ufe we now fpeak of, fcarce occurs among the
ancients, if we may believe Herbert, M^ho read them all with
great diligence, and with a defign to find what was for his pur-
pofe. Speaking of their fins, he fays, ** Neque igitur mihi du-
** bium ejly quin eorum pctnituerit GentiUsf qu^ tot mala accer-
** ferunt, licet rarius quidem panitenti^ verbum inter authores,
** eOf quo jam ufurpatur Jenfu, reperiatur* ,^ Why does not
he doubt of it ? The reafon he goes on is, becaufe they ufed
facrifices. But I fuppofc for this very reafon fome do doubt if
they thought repentance fufficient : but of this more by and by.
The phliofophers neither taught nor pra6\ifed it. It is true>
Periander one of the wife men of Greece, had this for his fay-
ing, A//.apTwv ij.sTa.[2a\'cvii, *' Repent of thy fins;" that is, pof-
fibly, leave them off. For who can tell us whether he had a
right notion of repentance, or of what avail he thought it? Se-
n.eca fays, Quefn penitet peccaJJ'e pene ejl innocens f. This is
ipoken with his ufual pride that made him think little of fin.
But where is the perfon that taught repentance, or offered to
evince it fufficient to atone the Deity ? Moft of them contemp-
tuoufly dlfregarded it. We find nothing like it in their bed
morallfi's prad^ice : but on the contrary, they were fo puffed up
with their virtues, that they made no account of their fins. The
priefis taught not this do6lrine, for they Inculcated facrifices as
neceffary to atone the Deity. And if we may believe no in-
competent judge, both priefis and people were perfuaded that
repentance is is not fufficient to atone the Deity. It is Cefar
who tells us, that, ** Pro vita hominis nifi vita hominis redda*
** tur nan pojfe deorum ijnmortalium numen placari arbitrantur
*' Gain :{:." To which we might add many more tefiimonles to
the fame purpofe. Nor do we find any thing like this difcovery

among

* Herbert de Relig. Gentil. pag. T98. — " Nor is it tlierefore a
*' doubt with me that the Gen:iles repented of thofe crimes which
" brought fo many evils upon them, although the word repentance, in
" that fenfe in which it is now ufed, feldom occurs in their authors."
+ " He who repents of having linned is almpft innocent."
X Caefar de BeJlo Gal. Lib, 6. See Outramus de Sacrificiis, I-ib, i.
Cap. 22. — << The Gauls are of opinion that the Majeily of the immor-
** tal gods cannot be appeafed unlefs the life of a man be given for the
^* Hfe of another."

PHIMCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 209

among them ; M'hich is very ftrange in a matter of importance, if
it was^lb dearly revealed. That which is moll like what they
would be at, is what we find in Ovidius —

So'pe let'ant penasi ereptaqUe lutnina reddmit
'^e?n bene peccati penituijfe 'vides. Et alihiy

^(aynnjis eji igttur vicritii indehita ncjlris, -
Magna tamen /pes efi iH bonitate Dei *.

But this is nothing to the purpofe : how many of the poets'
notions, and particuJarly this one, were traditional? How evi-
dently were their notions cf all things about the gods fuited to
their own fabulous ftories of the clemency of the gods. And
befides, we have no alTurance that he underftood what we do by
repentance. Nor indeed could he. But of this more anon.

OhjeBions confiJered*

IT remains now that We take notice of fome confiderable oh--
je61ions that are made againfl: what hitherto has been dicourfcJ
by different perfons, on different views and principles.

I. Say fome, if the cafe is fo apparent that all have finned ^
and the relief is fo hid, that nature's light could not difcern it ;
whence^is it that all men run not to defpair and take fanduary
here ? Whence Is it that religious worihip was univerfally con-
tinued in the world? Yea, whence is it that fuch a wordiip
univerfally obtained^ that feems founded on the fuppofition of a
placable God?

To this fpecious argument we anfwer, that many things there
are in nature, whereof we can give no fatlsfying account. And
If there fliould prove fomeiliing in morality too, not to be ac-
counted for, it were not to be wondered at. But not to infift on
this, I anfwer dire6lly. A fair account may be given of this
otherwife than by admitting what we have overthrown upon (o
many clear arguinents. Towards which, we Ihall make the fol-
lowing attempt: l. The natural notices of a Deity, that are In-
laid in the mindsof men, ftrongly prompted them to worihip fome
one or other. From this natural obligation they could not {hake

themfelves

* De Ponto Lib. i. Eleg. 1. 7. — *< You fee that he who duly re-
** pcnts of his offence, often alleviates his punilii me nt, and rei^ores

" his loft light. Although therefore it is not due to our raciits,

" vet there is great hope in the goodnefs of God.'*

C c

2IO AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chaf '

themfelvcs loofe. 2. Thrir ignorance and darknefsas to the
real horror of the cafe, made them think little of fin, and con-
fequently apprehend that it would not prove fuch an obfiruction
to acceptance, as really they had realon to apprehend it was.
3. Ail who allow of revelation, own that the revelation of for-
givenefs, as well as the means of obtaining it, was twice uni-
verfal in the days of Adam and Noah. 4. Though this reve-
lation was in To far loft by the generality of mankind, that it
could not be ufeful to its proper end, yet fomewhat of it remain-
ed fHU in the world, and fprcad itfelf with jnankind. 5. All
forts of men found their interefl and account in keeping it up,
1 he priefts who engroITed the advantage of the religion of the
world, found their gain in it. The politicians who aimed at the
good of ibciety, found it ufeful to their purpofe. The poets
who aimed at pleafing, found it capable of tickling the ears of
a world involved in fin. And the people whofe confciences'
were harralTed with guilt of atrocious crimes, found fome fort of
relief. And what ?A[ found fome benefit by, was not likely
quite io be loft. The phllofophers feeing the ftrait of the cafe,
faw that they could not make a better of it and fo acquiefced.
6. Tiieir profane conceptions of the deities, as if they were
perlons that allowed or pra6lifed their evils, did help forward.
The gods which their own fancy had framed, they could caft in-
to what mould they pleafed, as it beft fuited their intereft or in-
clinations. 7, Satan who acled a very vifible part among them,
and bore fway without ccntroul, no doubt had a deep hand in
the matter, and could varioufly revive, alter and mianage the
tradition, natural notices and interefts of men, fo as to make
his own advantage of them. Other things might be added,
fhcwing the concernment of the holy God in this matter, which
1 fhall wave for fome reafons that are fatisfying tomyfelf. But
what is faid, I conceive fufticient to blunt the edge of the cb-
jeftion. 1 Ihall only fubjoin the wordsof the learned Amyrald,
who after he has ov/ned the natural difcoveries of placability ;
but withal (hown their ufelcft^ncfs, and tliat they had no influ-
ence nor could have, in the words former ly quoted, at length he
moves th.is fame objctlion that \vc have here propolcd, and re-
turns the anfvvcr, which we (hail now tranfcribe, though it \<
fomewhat long, the rather becaufc it comes from a perfon not
onK of great learning, but one who owned placability might
be demonftrated by the light of nature, and yet denies that it
was the foundation of the religion that was to be found- in the

w^orld.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 211

vv'oild. " But perhaps, (fays he,) It will here be demanded,
^^ v/hence then came it to pafs that all nations have each of
" them had its religion ? And why are not all men dilTociated
'' Inliead of hanging together in religious fociefy ? To which
** I anlwer, that the mind of man is never agitated with the
•' fame emotions, nor conflant in the fame thoughts; the fame
** paffion not always pofTeffing him, nor the fame vice. They
** take their turns, or fucceed and mingle one with another.
** Two things therefore have hindered that men, though pof-
** feffcd with fear, have not abandoned all fervice of the Deity,
** — profanencf:5 and pride : God perm;itting the profanenefs of
*■ fome and the prefumption of others to temper the terror
** of confcience. Firfl, profanenefs; becaufe not v.-eighing
** fufficiently how much God abominates vice, and how inex-
** orable his juftice is, they often have flattered themfelves with
** this thought, that he fcarce takes any notice of fmall of-
** fences, and fuch as are in the intention and purpoieonly, that
** is, in the aifcCtions of the will and not in a6lions really cx-
^* ecuted. Moreover, they thought he was not much incenfed,
*' but with crimes that turn to fome notable detriment to the
** commonwealth, or carry fome blot of infamous improbity.
** Although mafculine lull was either juP.ified or cxcufed, or
** tolerated by the mod civilized people of Greece. And they
** were fometimes fo befotted in their devotions, that they
*' thought not but crimes of the greateft turpitude with no great
** difficulty might be expiated by their facrifices, luftrations, reli-
** gious procelfions.myfieriesand bacchanel folemnities. On the
**, other fide, prefumption ; becaufe not fulHciently acknow-
** ledging how much they owed to the Deity, they imagined
*' that their good works, their offerings, and the exercife of
** that fhadow of virtue, which they purfued, might counter-
** vail the offences they committed: fo that were they bal-
** anced together, there might be hope not only to avoid pu-
" nifnment, but moreover to obtain recomper.ce. Upon which
** ground it was that Socrates being near his end, and dif-
** courfingof the immortality of the Ibul, fpeaks largely of his
'* hope, (in cal'e the foul be not extinguid-ied with the body)
** to go and live with Hercules and Palamedes, and the other
** perfons of high account. But as to afiiing God pardon of the
** ottences he had committed, he makes no mention at all of it ;
** becaufe though he fpoke always difTemblingly of h imfelf, he
had in the bottom of his foul great opinion of his own vir-

*' tue

«e

«i

t(

212 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

■* tuc, and made no great reckoning of his vices, from which
'* notwithf^anding he was no more exempt than others. And
** had his life been of fuch purity, ihjt tlic eyes of men could
** not difccrn a blot in it (although Tome have written Infamous
*' matters of him) yet when the account is to be made up with
** God, there needs another perfection of virtue than that of
his to fatisfy fo exatt a juliire. But yet further, oftentimes
thefe two vices of profanencfs and prcfumption have met to-
gether in the fame fubje6\, and lulled men with vain hopes
into abfoluie fupinity. Whence the excels of fear hath been
** retrenched, which would otherwife have at laft turned into
** defpair, and confequently not only diffipated all communion
** in religion, but likevvife ruined all human fociety. For fear
** rertrainin'?; man on the one fide from abfolute contemning the
** Deity by profanenels, on the other fide, profanenefs and pre-
** fumption hindered it from precipitating nien into thst furious
** defpflir which would have overthrov/n all, and raufed more
** horrible agitations in the mind of man, ihan ever the moll
** outragious bacchldes were fenfible of. So that by the mix-
*' ture, viciiTitude and variation of thefe diverfe humours has
religion been maintained in the world. But it is eafy to judge
* how flncere ihat devotion was, which was bred of fear, (a
paffion that is naturally terminated on hatied) felf-prefump-
** tion, and mifapprehenfion of the julf ice of God. Whereas
** the certain knowledge of the remiflion of fins, of which the
** fpecial revelation from heaven can only give us affured hope,
'* is a marvellous pewerfully attradlive to piety, out of gratitude
*^ towards fo Ineftimable a goodnefs*."

II. Sonje object again Jl what has been proven. That God is
good, companionate and kind ; and that natures cf any excel-
lency take pleafure in cxercifing mercy, companion and kind-
nefs, and with difliculty are brought to a6ls of fcverity,

1 anfwer, i. The goodnefs, kludncfs, mercy and compafFion
of God are a pietty fubje6t for men to declaim and make ha-
rangues about. But when tliey are made, they are iiitle to the
purpofc ; for they are eafily anfivered by a reprcfentation of
the juftice and holinefs of God» And the difliculty is not
iouchcd, unlefs men can iliew how thefe fecmingly jarring at-
iributes ma)'^ be confident, 2. The inferences men muft draw
from fuch reprefentations of the nature of God, are fuch as will

crols
•" Amy raid cf Rciig. Tzzt i. Chap. 7. pag. 254, 253, 256,

*f

n

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 213

trofs the experience of mankind who want revelation, and fee
ijiariy eHTefts of hie bounty, goodnefs, forbearance and patience,
but none of his pardoning mercy ; and nrjany of his juftice and
holy leveriiy. Wherefore M^e inay leave this fubjeft and pro-
ceed, though much might be fald to clear how little all this is to
the purpofe. But we conceive this is apparent from what has
i?een above difcourfed.

III. It is laid,** Ihat the very comniand of God to ufe his ap-
" pointed means for men's recovery, doth Imply that it ftiall not
" be in vain ; and doth not only fhew a pofiibility, but fo great
'* a hopefulnefs of fuccefs to the obedient, as may encourage
'* them chearfuUy to undertake it, and carry It through*."

In aafvver to this, I have above cleared, that men are flill
obliged to obey ; that there are many things, of which feveral
are by him mentioned in the fubfequent fetlions of that chapter,
whence thefe wor^s are quoted, which might be improven to
excite qian tp a cordial compliance, in cafe there were a new,
clear and plain invitation to a return with hope of acceptance.
And I admit, that to deny this, as he fays, in the words Imme-
diately proceeding thofe now quoted, were to make earth a hell.
Yea further, fo long as men are out of hell, there is flill a pofli-
bility in the cafe : but that there is any fuch invitation given,
or aiTurance of a hopeful ifiTue, or means diretlly and fpeclally
inftituted by God as ineansof recovery, knowablq by men left to
the mere light of nature, I deny : becaufe I fee not the lliadow
of a proof and evidence to the contrary that has been offered,

IV. It is alleged by the fame author,That God's commanding
us to forgive others, encourages us to tx^tcX Jorgivtnefs at his
hand.

To this I fay, i. The learned perfon owns, ** That from
** from this it doth not follow, that God mufl; forgive all, which
** he bindeth us to forgive, for reafons he had before expreffed."
2. I'fay, that this, the comm.and of God to forgive others, lies
not fo open to the view of nature's light, as that every one can
difcern it. And befides, it admits of many exceptions, for
ought that unaffilled nature can dilcover, 3. It is reftrided to
private perfons, and is not to be extended to public injuries
done againfl government, 4. When it is found to be our duty
by nature'ij light, we are brought to fee it bv fuch reafons as

ihcfc

* Baxter's Reafons of Chrift. Relig. Part i. Chap. 17. ^. 9. pag.

1S6,

^14 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

tbefe, That v/e need the like favour at their hands, that we arc
frail, &:c. which gives us ground to be jealous that the like Is
riot to be expelled at his hand, with whom thefe things have
no place, which are the reafon of the law to us. So that from
this, as it is dilccverable by nature's light, no furc inference
can be drawn.

V, It is obje<3ed, That facrifices and all the religious fervi-
ces arr.cn gft the Heathens, were only fymbolical of a good life
i:nd repentance*.

To this I fay, j. If this were true, Herbert and the deifts
are much in the wrong to the prieAs who urged the ufe them,
as men who negle£\ed to inculcate repentance. For any thing
I can fee they were more commendable than the philofophers,
who neither taught nor pra^tifed repentance, and vilified facrifices.
But 2, This is a fcandalous falfchood ; for there is nothing more
evident, than that by the facrifices they dcfigncd to atone the
deities, and expected that they fnould be accepted In place of
the offerers, and their death be admitted inftead of what they
had defcived themfelvcs. See abundance of teRlmonies given
to this by him to whom we referred, when we quoted Cefar's
tePiimony to this purpofc ; I mear^ Outram. What, I pray,
rneant the cuflom that previillcJ, not only among the Jews, but
Heathens, of oif'erlng their Sacrifices with folemn prayers to
God, that all the plagues which they or their country had de-
ierved, might light on the head of the victim ; and fo they
themfelves efcape ? And hereupon they thought that all their
fms did meet upon it, and defile it to that degree, that none
who had touched it dared to return home till they had wafheJ
and purified themfelves. Suidas reports of the Greeks, ** Quod,
*' ei, qui main avcrruncandis quotannis deflinatus erat, fic im,-
*' jjrf.cabantur, Ju ^^t-^yi^oi, noflrum, hoc eji, falus ^ redemption
'* Arqut ita ilium in mare projicidmiity quafi Neptune facivm
*' piYfolventes\." Servius tells us, ** Maililienes, quoties pejii-
^' Un!ia laborabant, unu3 fi ex paupejibus offerehat, alcndus
** u-nno integro pubiicis ii? puno^ibus cibis, llic pi^jleay orna-
^^ i^s mrbtnis i3 vcjlibus facris, circuiridiictbatur per tatom ci-

** vitaiem

* See A. V7. Letter, Oracles of F.eafon.

'\ " They curfed the perfon who was yearly appointed for averting
•' .-ieforcunes, in this rflanner, " Be thou oar atonement," that is,
*• cj; f:ifety and redemption ; and fo they threw him into the fea, as
'"■ pciiorraing a facrifice to Neptune.'*

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEKN DEISTS. 215

** vitate?n cum fxecrationibus, ut in ipfum reciderent mala totius
** civitatis ; & fic prcjiciebatur *." But we have ftayed too ior.g
in refuting this rra(i and ungrounded conceit.

VI . Some, to prove that the works cf providence, particu-
larly his forbearance to finners and bounty to (hem, do call
men to repentance without the word, urge the apoftle's word!?,
Rom. ii. 4. Or defptfijl thou the riches of his goo due fs and
forbearance^ and lonfr'fiijjeringy not knowing that the gaodnffi
of God leadilh thee to repentance ? To this we anfwer,

1. Divines, and thefe not a ^i^w^ nor of the loweft form, do
underfiand this whole context of the Jews ; and they urge rea-
fons for it that are not contemptible. If this opinion hold, no
more can be drawn from thefe words, than v^hat has been alrea-
dy granted without any prejudice to our caufe, viz. that this
difpenfation, where perfonsare otherwife under a call to repen-
tance, gives time to repent, and enforceth the obligation of
that call they arc under.

2. But to cut off all pretence of any plea from this fcriD-
ture, we fhall take under our confideration the apoflle's whole
diicourfe, from the l6th ver. of the 4th chap, to the 4th ver-
of the 3d, and give a view cf thefe words, and other paffaes?
infifted on to the fame purpofe, with a fpecial eye to the apoJ-
tic's fcope in the di{courfe,and the particulardcfign of every paT-
fage. And this we Iball undertake, not (o much out of any reoard
to this obje6lion in particular, but to obviate the abufc of feverai
paiTages of this difcourfe of the apoftie, by one with whom we
ihali have juft now occafion to debate almoft every verfe in
this fecond chapter. If therefore our folution of the apoOIe's
difcourfe feem a little tedious at prefent, this difadvantai^e will
be compenfated by the light it will contribute for clearing ma-
ny of the enfuing objections.

The apoftle Paul, Rom. i. 16. had afferted, that the gofpf!
is the power of God to falvation to every one that believes^ to th"
Jewfirjland alfo to the Greek yih^t is, it is the only powerful mean
of falvation to perfons of ail forts ; neither Jew nor Greek can be

faved

* « As often as the Maffilians were affliaed with the peftilenc-,
«< one of the poor offered himfelf, who v/as to be nourilhed for a whci?
" year with clean viduals, at the public expence, afcer which being a-
" domed with vervains and facred garments, he was led round ths
" whole city with execrations, that the misfortunes of the whole ciii
" might fall upon Y^'un, and thus he was cad our."

2i6 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

faved by any other mean. In the 17th verfe, he advances an ar-*
gument for proof of this aifertion, which is plainly this, that re-
velation,which exhibits the rightcoufntfs ofGodj^hxch is the only
righteoufnefs that can pleafe God, and on the account whereof he
accepts and juftifiesfinners; and which exhibits //z/j rightcoufncpSj
not upon flender or conjedlaral 5;ro\inds, hux from faithj that is,
upon the teOimony oi k\\q faithful Go>J, who can neither be de-
ceived nor deceive us, propofcs this righteoufnefs to our faith, as
the only powerful mean of falvalion : but it is the goJl'el only that
doth reveal this righteoufnefs of God from failhj or upon the
credit of divine teftlmonv unto faith: therefore the gofpel is the
only powerful mean of God's appointment.

This is plainly the apoftlc's argument ; and if we confidcr it,
we will find it to comprize three affertions ; i. That the right'
^.oufmfs of God rcvcTxlcd in the gofpel, and received hy faith, is
that, on the account wliereof, finners are accepted with and
juflified before God. This is one branch of his firll: propofition^
which he defigns to explain and confirm afterwards at length.
Here he only confirms it by hintinj^ a proof of it from the prophet
Habakkuk's words, the ja/ljliall live by faith, t\\AX h, faith re-
ceiving the righteoufnefs of God revealed in Jhe proniife, is the
foundation of all the godly, their hopes of pardon, peace. with
God, grace to fupport under trials, and a merciful deliverance
from them. As it is by thefe things they live in troublefome times,
fo it is the acceptance of this righteoufnefs, that gives them any
right to thefe advantages. 2 His firft propofition implies this alTer-
tion, that this righteoufnefs of God revealed in the gofpel, is the
only efFedlual mean of acceptance with and juification before
God ; or, that there is no other way wherein any of the children
of men may obtain thofe advantages, fave this Way of accepting
by faith the righteoufnefs of God, upon the credit or faith of
his teftimony ; this is the other branch of his firfl propofition.
3. The apoftlc affcrts in this argument, that the gofpel doth re-
veal this righteoufnefs of God ; on which, and on which only,
acceptance with and juRification before God are to be obtained,
from faith to faith* This is the apoftle's aiTumption orfecond
propofition.

The apoOle hnvjnp: hinted for the prefent, at a fufficient proof
of the firfi of thefe afl'prtlons, as has been faid, paOes it. He lays
afide likewife the third of thefe aflertions, defigning to clear it
afterwards, and addicfTcs himfclf to tlie proof of the fecond in

the

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 217

the enfuing diTcourfe from chap. i. ver. 18. to chap. iii. ver,
20' or thereabout.

The propofition then which our apoftle fpends the whole
context under confideration in proof of, is," That there is no
other way whereby a finner can obtain juflification before, or
acceptance with God, but by faith:" Or that ** neither Gen-
tiles tior Jews can be jullified before God by their own works.

This he demonfirates, Firft, Againft the Gentiles in parti-
cular, from chap. i. ver. 18. to chap. ii. ver. 16. according
to our prefent fuppofition, or conceffion of his adverfaries.
Next, He proves the fame in particular againft the Jews, chap,
il. to ver. 8. of chap. iii. And from thence to the clofe of
his difcourfe he demonftrates the fame in general againft all
mankind whether Jews or Gentiles.

Firjly Then, he demonftrates againft the Gentiles in parti-
cular, that they cannot be juftified before God by the zuorks
they may pretend to have done in obedience \.o the law of nature y
by the enfuing arguments, which we fliali not i educe into
form ; but only propofe the force of them, by laying down in
the moO: natural and eafy order, the propofitions whereof they
do confifl.

i. The apoflle infinuates, ver, 18. that the Gentiles had
fome notions of truth concerning God, and the woriViip due to
him from the light of nature, ver. 18. though they imprifoned
them : and what here he infinuates, he directly proves ver.
19, 20.

2. He aOerts, that they did not walk anfwerably to thefe no-
tices, but detained them in unnghteoufnefs ; that is, they fup-
preffed, bore them down, and would not allow them that di-
re<Stive power over their pra6\ices which they claimed ; but in
oppofition to them went on in fin. This he had intimated in
general, ver. 18. and he proves it, ver. 21, 22, 23.

3. He proves, that the wrath of God, is revealed from hea-
veUf efpecially by inftances of fpiritual plagues, the mofl ter-
rible of all judgments, againft them for.-nheir countera6iing
thofe notices of truth. This he alfo intimated, ver. i8« and
proves it, ver. 24, 25, 26.

4. He fhews, that the Gentiles being thus,- by the jufi:
judgment of God, given up and left to themlelves, did run
on from evil to worfe in all forts of abominations ; and there-
by did render their own condemnation the more fure, inevit-
able and intolerable. This he does from ver. 26, to 32.

D d 5. To

2i8 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ciu?. x.

5. To confirm this further, ver. 32. he (liews that the fact
cannot be denied, in regard that they both prac^tifed thofe
evils themfelves, and made themfclvcs guilty by their virtual
approbation of them in others: nor could It be excufcd, (Incc
they could not but know, if they attended to the light of na-
ture, that fucfi grofs abominations are worthy of death-

6. The apo-lle having in the lad verfe of chap. i. men-
tioned this aggravation of their fins, that they were againfi:
knowledge, takes occafion thence to proceed to a new argu-
ment, whereby he at once confirms what be had faid about
their finning againd knoivledge, chap. i. ver. 32. and fur-
ther evinces his main point, that they mufl inevitably be con-
demned by a new argument, which he lays down in the enfuing
aifertion, either cxpreffed or infinuated#

(r.) He takes notice, that the Gentiles, if he fpeaks of them^
do themfelves practife thofe things, which they judge ai.J con-
demn others for.

(2.) He takes it for granted, as well he may, that he who
condemns any practice of another, doth confefs that that
pra6licc in itfelf is worthy of condemnation.

(3.) He hereon infers, that the Gentiles do pra6\ife thofc
things, which according to their own acknowledgment, are
in themfelves v/orthy of condemnation. Nov/ this conclufion
diredly fixes upon them the aggravation mentioned In the clofc
of the proceeding chapter, viz. That they know the things
they do to be worthy of death. And this fufficiently clears
the connection.

(4.) He argues again, that the judgment of God being al-
ways according to truth, he will c-rtaiiily condemn all, who
do things thjt in truth are ivorthy cf condemnation, ver. 2.

(c;.) Hereon by an inevlt.ible confequence, ver. 3. he con-
cludes, that God will certainly condemn the Gentiles, which
is the main point.

(^ ) As an inference from the whole, h-e concludes, that
as uiv profpe6l ofefcape is vain, fo they are precluded from
all excufe, or (hadow of ground for reclaiming agair.ft the
fentence of God, which by their own acknowledgement pro-
ceeds only agalnd praiSiices, that arc in truth worthy of con-
demnation.

7. J'he apofile having thus locked them up, as it were,
under unavoidable condemnarion, proceeds ver. 4. to cut off
lUeir retreat to that, wherein fome of them, took fancluary.

They

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 219

They concluded, that God, who did forbear them, while they
went on in (in, and allowed them to fnare fo deep in his
poodnefs, would not punilli them i'o Severely. To cut ofF
this plea, the apoftle firft taxes tiicm as guilty of a grievous
abufe of this difpenfation, while they drew encouragement
from it to go on in fin. 2. He argues them of grofs igno-
rance of the genuine tendency of this dealing of God. , To ar-
gue thus, ** God fnares me and is good fo me, therefore I
may fafely f;n agami^ him, and hope for his iinpunity in
committing known fm againfl him," is mad and unreafon-
able. Keafon Aould fay, ** God forbears me, and fo gives
iTic time ; he adds to former obligations I lay under to
obey him by Joading me with new kindnefles, therefore I
ihould be the mere lludious to pleafe him, and avoid thefc
things which 1 know will be offenfive to him, and be afhamed
for former offences. " This by the way is the full import of
that exprellion, The goodfiejs of God Ida ding to repentavcf.'
But of this more ancn. 3. Hereon ver. 5. lie infers that their
abufe cf this difpenfation and their not returning to obedience,
or anfwering the obligations laid on them increa-es their guilt,
and fo lays up materials for an additicnal libel, and a more
highly accented puniilimcnt, ver. 5.

Having thus fnortly given an account of the fccpe and mean-
ing of the words, I fhall next lay down a few Ihort obfervations
clearly fubverlive of any argutricnt that can be drawn from
them.

(t.) None can fay, that the perfons, who were under this
difpenfation did, in fa6}, underAand it to import a call to re-
pentance. The apodle accuf^s them of ignorance of this, and
of abufing ic by drawing encouragement from it, that they
Ihould efcape puniihment, though they vent on in fin,

(2.) ll is piain, the apoille's fcope i-d him to no more, but
this, to evince, that this difpenfation afforded them no ground
to hope for impunity, no encouragement to proceed in a courfe
of known fn, that it did aggravate the guilt of their continu-
ance in fuch fins, and enforce the obligations theyctherwife wztq
under to abdinencc from them, and the practice of neglected
duties. This is all the words will bear, and ail that the fcope
requires.

(3.) Theapodic is proving, as \vc have clearly evinced above,
that the perfons, v/iih whom he is npw dealing, without recourfe
to the gofpel revelation^ are fhut up from ail accefs to julH-

fication

220 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

ficatlon before God, acceptance with him, pardcn and falvation ;
certain! V therefore he cannot it) this pla> e be urdeifiood to intend
that thefe perfons were under ireans fufhcient to lead them to
that repentdnce, upon which they might be aiTared of forgi vcnefs
and peace with God.

(4.) This fame apoftle elfev here appropriates the call to
repentance unto the gofpel revelation, Acls xvii. 30. fpeaking
to the Heathens at Athens, he lays, the times of this ignorance
God winked at ; but new common deth all men evry xvhere to re-
pent- Here It is plain, that men left to the light of natnre, are
Jeft without lliis call, until the gofpel ccme and give this invi-
tation.

(5.) Wherefore we may from the particular fcope of thisverfe,
the general fcope of the apoftle's dilcourfe, and his plain de-
clarations upon other occafions, conclude, I. That the repen-
tance he here intends, is no. that repentance to which the pro-
mife of pardon is in the gofpel annexed ; but only an abfiinence
from thefe evils, which their confciences condemn them for,
and the return to fome fort of perforniance of the material part
of known, but defertcd duty. Frequent mention is made of
fuch a repentance in fcripture ; but no where is pardon pro-
iriifed upon It. 2. This leading imports no more, but that the
difpenfation \\ e fpeak of difcovers this return to be duty, and
gives fpace or time for It.

(6.) To confirm what has been now faid, it is to be obferved,
that our apoftlc acquaints, that this forbearance and goodnefs is
e^ercifed towards the vejfels of wrath fitted to deJirvMion^ Rom.
5X,. 22. which fufficlently intimates that this difpenfation of
stielf gives no affurance of pardon to thefe who are under it,
but is confiflent with a fixed purpofe of puniibing them. Yet
■^vithout this adurance, it Is Impodlblc there fticuid ever be any
call fo repentance, that can be available to any of mankind,
or anfwer the hvpothefis of thofe with whom we have to do.

8. In the clofe of ver. 5, the apoOle introduces a difcourfe
of'the laft judgment for two ends : Firtl, To cut offthofe abuf-
ers of God's goodnefs from all hopes of efcape. He has before
fliewcd that they have flored up fins, the caufcs of wrath ; and
here he fnews there is a judgment defigned, wherein thev will
reap as they have fown. Thus the words follcMnng are a confir-
mation of the foregoing argument, and enforce the apoflle's main
fcopc. Secondly, fie does it for clearing the righteoufnefs of God
^rom any imputation that the dilpenfation he had been fpeak-
ing

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 221

j/ig of, viz. his forbearance and goodnefs towards finriers, might
tempt blind men to throw upon it ; and this he does by flicwing
that this is not the time of retribution, but that there is atLopen
2nd foiemn diHribution def\{5ned, wherein Gcd will fully cl^sr
his righteoufnefs. To theie iwo erds is this whole account of
the lafi judgment fuited. He tells them that there is a c'av of
wrath and of tht revelation of the righteous judgment oj God.
While he fpeaks of the reuelaticn of the righteous judgment of
Godi he tacitly grants that by this difpenfaticn of foibtarance,
the righteouinels of Gcd's judgment is icme way clouded or
under a vail : but withall he imimates that there is a definite
time, a day fixed lor its manifefiation ; and that this day will
prove a day oJ wraths that is, a day wherein the virdi6\ive juf-
tice of God will fignally mar.iteft itfelf, in pun filing iuc h fin-
ners as they were with whom he deals. In fliort, he acquaints
them, that the defign of this day is to reveal the righteous
judgment of God, that is, to maniteH to the conviction ot an-
gels and men, the righteouinels of God's prccctdings toward
the children of n?en, particularly as to rcwardsand punilh.ments.
It will be righteous., and therefore fuch finricrs as they {hall net
efcape. It will be revealed to be luch ; and fo all grour.d of ca-
lumny will be taken away. To clear this, he gives an account
of the concernments of that judgment, in fo far as it is to his
purpofe ; wherein,

(l.) He teaches, that there will be an open retribution of
rewards and punilhmer.ts, God will render, &c.

(2.) He fhews, that God will proceed in this retribution up-
on open and inconteftible evidence. He will render according
to zuorks' The perfons who are to be punifl.ed fl-iall, to the
convidion of on-lookers, be convi<Sled by their works oJ impiety;
and the piety of thofe to whom the rewards are given, il.ail in
like manner be cleared.

(3.) He acquaints them, that the difiributicn flail be fuita-
ble to the chara6^er of the perfons, the nature and quality of
their works. He will render according to their works; that
is, evil to the evil ; good to the good. This is all that is in^
tended by ^xroe, fecunduvi, or according : the rreaning is not
that he will render according to the merit of their works. For
though 1 own that God will puniih according to the juft de-
merit of fin ; yet that is not intended here by this phrafe ac
cording to works : for the word in its proper fignification inti-
mates, not ftrl6^ or unlverfai proportion betwixt the things con-

nec\ed

•ii^:

AN INC^UIRY INTO THE ghap. x.

necked by It ; much lefs doth it particularly 'ivr.port, that the
one is the meriioricus caule of the other ; but the word is, in
all languages, commonly taken m a more lax fignihcatjon, to
denote any rult^bienefs betwixt the things conne6ied by it. So
our Lord favs to the blind men, Matth. xix. 29. According te
your fait k be it unto yoU' Who u-ill fay that any faith, but e-
jpeciaily fuch a lame one as we have reafon to think thev had, did
merit that miraculous cure ; or that it was every way fuitable unto
3t? Since then the word of itfeif does not import this, it cannot
be taken fo here, unlefs either other fcriptures determine us to
this fenfe, or fomething in the context fix this to be the mean-
ing of it. To take it in this fenfe as to rewards, is fo far from
having any countenance from ether fcriptures, that it is direftly
contrary to the whole current of them. And when the word i^
taken in this fenfe, then the fcriptures plainly tell us that we arc
no\ faved or mvarded by or according to our works of rightiouf'
fsefi, but according to his mercy through Jtfus Chriji, Tit. iii.
5, 6. Nor is there any thing in the text or context to incline
us to take it in this fenfe, but much on the contrary to de-
iTionftrate that this is not the meaning, at leaft with refpe6l to
rewards : for to fay, that the reward iliaii be given us according
to our works, that 13, for our works, as meritorious of it, flat-
ly contradicts the apofile's fcope, which is to prove, that all
mankind, Jews and Gentiles, do by their works merit only con-
demnation, and that none can expe6) upon them abfolution,
much lefs rev/ard, Befides, the works here principally inten-
ded are not all our works, nor thefe, which if any had, would
have the faireft pretence to merit, vi?. the inward actings of
grace, faith, love, &c. but outward woiks that are evidences
of the inward temper and frame ©f the ?61ors. This is evident
from the word itfelf, fiom the particular inftances elfewhere
londcfcended upon, when the laft judgment is fpoken of, and
\'i'-\m the defign of this general judgment.

(4.) He (hews, that this rctribufion will be imlverfal, io
c:)iry oW-j &ic,

(r.) He iiiufTrates further the righteoufnefs of it, ver. 7. by
charailerizing the pcrfons who are to be rewarded, they arc fuch
as do well, thit is, wliofe a6^ions openly fpeak them good, and
m-jdence the honef^y of the prmciple whence they flow; xhty con^
tinuiin well doing, their walk is uniform and habitually good;
iiowing from a fixed principle, and not from an external acciden-
tal caufe; they continue paUently in this courfe, in oppofition

to

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 223

ta all difcouragements ; nor do they aim at worldly advantage,
but at that glory ^ honour and immortality, which God fets be-
fore them. None but they, who are perfed^ly fuch, fhall have
3 reward, if it is fought for, according to the tenor of the cove-
nant of \Vorks: and in this fenfe not a few, nor they obfcurc
interpreters, do take the words; as if the apoflle had faid, if
there be any among you, who have perfe6^1y obeyed, ye fhall
be rewarded : but whereas I have cleared that' none of you are
fuch, ye are cut off from any expectation of reward. But if the
fincerity of obedience is only intended, then the meaning is
that God will of his grace, according to his promife, and not
for their works, give the reward to the fincerely obedient ; and
thereby will openly evince his righteoufnefs, in dealing with them
exactly according to the tenor of the covenant, to which they
belong; fo that no. perfon, who has any juft claim to reward
founded upon either covenant, fliall want it.

(6.) To clear the glory of God's righteoufnefs further, he
fpecifies the reward, viz. eternal lifi, a reward fufficient to com-
penfate any lofles they have been at, evidence God's love to
holincfs,and his regard unto his pronuTes.

{7.) He, in like manner, clears the matter further, by giv-
ing a defcription ver. 8. of the perfons,who are to be condemned,
which evinces the apparent righteoufnefs of the fentence to be
palTed againft them. They are fuch againrt whom it will be
made evident, that they have been contentious, that is, that
they have oppofed and fupprefled the truths they knew, flifled
convictions, and detained them in unrighteoufnefs : fuch as have
not obey zd the truth, or walked up to their knowledge, but have
obeyed unrighteoufnefs , following the inclinations of their cor-
rupt hearts. As if the apoftie had faid, the perfons v/ho arc to
be rewarded are of a character that ye can lay no manner of
claim to, but your charadler is perfe(5tly that of thofe who are
to be condemned.

(8.) He fpecifies the punifliment, indignation and wrath*

(9.) To fix the truth and importance of this deeper upon their
minds, he repeats and enlarges upon this affertion, ver. 9, 10.
thereby affuring them that the matter is infallibly certain, and
to 2;ivc a further evidence of the righteoufnefs cfGcd, he adjeCts
a claufe and repeats it twice over, viz. jtrji to the J etc and aljo
to the Gentile, wherein he (lievvs the impartiality of God's pro-
ceedings. He will not fuffer one foul, who has any juft claim
to reward, to go unrewarded, be he Jew or Gentiie. He will

not

224 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, x,

not allow one finner, to whom puniflirnent belongs, to efcape
linpunifhed. The Jews' privileges lliall not lave ihefn, if guilty,
but judgment ihall begin firft at the houfe of God ; nor fhall the
bare vv^nt of privileges prejudge the Gentiles.

(lo.) To confirm this, he ad J aces an argume... from the na-
ture of God, ver. 1 1. viz. that with him there is no refpcEl ofper^
fons, t)iat Is, no unjuil partial ly toward perfons, upon conhder-
ations, that do not belong unto the rule, whereby the caufe Is
to be tried.

(ii.) To ftrengthen this and obviate obje<5lions, ver. 12. he
alTerts, that Gad will proceed impartially in judging them ac-
cording to the mofi" unexceptionable rule. He will condemn
the Jews for their trafgreflions of that law, which he gave to
them. He will condemn the Gentiles, not for the iranfgreffion
of the written law, wnich they had not, but for their fins againfl
the law of nature, which they had. And fo neither of them
iliall h^ve ground to except agalnil: the rule, according to which
God proceeds with them.

(12.) Hence he takes occafion, ver. 13. to rep?l an obje6lion
or plea of the Jews, who m.ight fancy that they fliouid not be
punilhed or perllh, to whom God had given the privilege of the
written law. To cut of this plea he tells them, that where
perfons expe6t juftification by the law, it is not the knowledge
of the law, or hearing of it, hui obedience to it that will be fuf-
tained. Here he does not fuppofe that any fliall be juflified
bv doing the law ; nay, he proves the contrary. It is mani-
fertly his defign, in the whole difcourfe, to do {o : but he ihews
that the plea of the Jews, that they had the law, is infufficient ;
as if he had faid, be it granted, that juftification Is to be had by
the law ; yet even upon that fuppofition, ye have no title to it,
unlefs ye peifedly obey it. The law pleads for none, but
thofe who do {o> And fince none of you do thus obey it, as
iliall be evinced anon, ye mufl perifh, as I faid, ver. 12.

{13.) Whereas the Gentiles might plead, it would be hard
treatment if they (hould be condemned^ fince they were without
the law ; he demonftrates that they could not except againfl
their own condemnation upon this ground, becaufe although
they wanted the written law, yet thev had another law, viz.
th^t o( nature ; for the breaches of which they might julHy b&
condemned. That they hac^ fuch a law he proves againft them,
ver. 14, 15. Firjlf From their praf^icj* : he tells them that by
the guidance of mere nature they did the zvoris oj th& lazo, that

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 225

is, they performed the material part of fome of the duties which
the hw enjoins, and thereby evidenced acquaintance with the
law, or as he words it, they fJiew the work of the law lunttin
iti their hearts, that is, the remainders of their natural lights
orreafon, performs the work of the law commanding duty,£,nd
forbidding fin. Secondly, He proves that they have fuch a law
from the v/orking of their confcience. He whofe confcicnce ac-
cufes him for not doing fome things, and approves him fordo-
ing other things, knows that he was obliged to do the one and
omit the other, and confequently has fome knowledge of the
Uw, This is the apollle's fcope, ver. 14, 15. So that /^r,
in the beginning; of ver. 14. refers to and renders a reafon of
thcfirft claufe of ver. 12. that they who had //zn<f^ without:
law, viz. the written law, fliall pen/Ii without law, that is, not
for violating the written law, which they had not.

(14.) Having removed ihefe objedions, he concludes his ac-
count of the laft jud<zment, ver. 16. wherein he gives them an
account, ijl. To whom it belongs originally to judge, it is
God. 2dly, Who the perfon is to whom the vifible adminif-
tration is committed, it is Jefus Chrift. 3fi7y, What the mat-
ter of that judgment is, or what will be judged, it is the y2-
crets of hearts. Although works will be infifted upon as evi«
dences for the conviaion of on -lookers, of the rightcoufnefs of
God in his didribution of rewards and puniOimcnts; yet the fecrets
of men will alfobe laid open, for the further confufion of fin-
ners, and juOification of the feverity of God againft them.

Secondly, Now the aportle having proven, that the Gentiles
are all under condemnation, and lo cannot be juftified by any
works they can do ; and having likewife removed fome excep-
tions of the Jews that fell in his way, he proceeds next di-
re£\ly to prove the fame againft the Jews in particular, and an-
fwers their objeaions from chap. ii. ver. 17. to chap. iii.
ver. 8. inclufrve.

To prove this charge againft the Jews, he makes ufc only
of one argument, which yet is capable of bearing the weight of
many conciufions or inferences. To underhand this, we muft
take notice, that the apoflle here is dealing with the Jews,
who fought to he jit flified by works- And,

I. Bv way of conccffion, he grants them feveral privileges
above the Gentiles from ver, 17. to ver. 20. incltifive, viz.
That they were called Jews ; that they had the law, on which
they refted, and pretended fome peculiar intereft. in Gcd,, a?.

E e being

226 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, x,

beins^ externally in covenant wlih him, ver. 17. of which the^
boafted ; that they had forne knowledge of the latv^ and pre-
tended themfelves capable of guiding others. This he grants
them in a variety ot expreffions, ver. 18, 19, 20. By v/hich
the apoftle fecretly taxes their vanity, and infmuates, that
whatever they bad in point of privilege, they abufed it.

2. The apoftle charges ihem with a pra6tical contradi^ion
to this their knowled(>e, and this he makes good againll ihetn,
particularly agunft their highcft pretenders, their teachers,
I. By condefcending on feveral inflances, wherein they were
gui'ly and appealing to their confciences for the truth of them,
ver. 22, 23. wiiich I (hall not infiii in explaining. 2. He
proves it further by a teftimony of fcripture, ver. 24. wherein
God covnpiains, that their provocations were fuch, as tempted
the Gentiles to blafpheme his name.

Tiiis is the argument, the conriufion he leaves to themfelves
to draw. And indeed it will bear all the conclufions formerly
Jaid down againd the Gentiles, Whatever their knowledge
was, they v/ere not doers, but breakers of the law^ and fo
could not be jnjlijied by it, ver. 13. but might expett to
perifli for their tranfgreilions of it, according to ver. 12.
Thev finned againft knowledge, and fo deferved as fevere rc-
fentments as the Gentiles, chap. i. ver. 32. They could
rot pretend ignorance ; for they taught others the contrary,
and fo were without excufe, chap, ii, ver. I.

The apoillc next proceeds to anfwer their obje£^ions. The
firft whereof is brought in, ver. 25. The (hort of it is this,
the Tews pretended they had circumcifion, the feal of God's
covenant, and fo claimed the privileges of it. This obje6lion
is not dire6ily propofed, but the anfwer anticipating it is In-
tr.oJricd as a confirmation or reafon enforcing the conclufion
aimed at, viz. That they could not be juHified by the law:
and therefore it is, that we find the calual particle /<?r In the
beginning of the verfe. This much for the manner wherein
the objection is introduced. To this objettlon the apoftle an-
fwers,

1. Bv a conceffion ; circuvici/ton verily profitcth if thou keep
the laWf that is, if thou perfectly obey the commands, then
thou mayeft in juftice demand the privileges of the covenant,
and plead the feal of it, as a pledge of the faithfulnefs of God
in the promifes.

2. He aniv/ers dire6lly by (hewing, that this feal fignlfied

juft

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 227

luft nctlii'ng: as to th \r cbim of a legal ric^htcoufncfs, bccaufe
thev were kreahrs of the law. But if thnu be. a breaker of the
lawj thy drcumc'i on is ?r,ade uncircamci/ion. I'he ihort of the
matter is thi- ; this fea! is only a condition:;! engagement of the
faithfuloefs of G'jcI : it does not lay, thou Ihalt get the privileges
whether iho'i perform the condition or not: fo that by this means,
if the condition is not performed, ye have nothing to a{k, and
ye are as remote from a claim to the reward, as they who want
the fesL

3, The aroftic, to iUuftrate and confirm what he had faid
^bout the unprofi^abienefs of circumcinon in cafe of tranigrel-
Iion, fl')e\v5, that a Gentile upon fuppofition that it were pclli-
ble, obeying the law, but wanting the feal of the covenant,
would have a better title to the privileges promifcd, than a
Jew, who had the feal, but wanted the obedience, ver. 26.
Therefore if the innircumcilion keep the rightccufncfs of the lazn,
that is, if a Gentile Ihould yield that obedience the law re-
quires, j!/;a// «(?/ his uncircurr,cifioni be counted for circiuncifon?
That Is, diali not he, notvvithftanding he wanteth the outward
fign of circijmcifion» be allowed to plead an intered in the blef-
lings promifed to obedience, and to inOft upon the faithfulnefs
of God for the performance of the prcmifes made \^ the obedi-
ent, of wiiich circumciiiom is the Tign ? Tb»e reafoQ of this is
plain, circumciBon feals the performance of the promile to the
obedient ; the Gentile obeying has that, which is the ground
whereon the failhfulnefs of God is engaged to perform the
promife, viz. obebience, and fo a real title to the thing pro-
mifed, though he wants the outward iign : whereas the C'if-
obeying Jew has o'lly the feal, which fccurcs ncthinc. but
upon the condition of that obebience, which he huS net yield-
ed. This is only fpoken by way of fuppcfition, not as if any
of the Gentiles had yielded fuch obedience : for he hss plain-
ly proven the contrary before. The apoUle's reafon is t'lis,
circurRcifjon is an engagement for the pcrformar.ee ot the pro-
mife to the obedient. The difobedient jeu' has therefore no
title to the promife; whereas the Gennle t!;at obeys having
that obedience to which the proniife is m.ade, l;as a real right
to it, and fo mis^ht expect the performance of it, as it he had
the outward fea!.

4. To clear yet further the unprofifabienefsofcircumcilion witr,-
out obedience, the apoOiejUpon the forefaid fuppofuion, ihewsj
that the Gentile obeying v/ould not only have the belter title;

but

223 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

but his obedience; would contribute to clearing the juflice of Godj
in condemiiir.g rhe diiobcdient Jew, ver 2^. And Jltall not un-
cucumAfion which is by nature, if itjulfd the law, judge thee,
zuho by the letier and circumcifiun doeji trangrefs the lazu, that is,
if a Gentile wanting circamciiion and tue Jecurity thereby given,
with th^ other advantages v; inch the Jews have, dilcover the in-
excufjb'encls of your dilobedience, who have liie /e//f r and cir^
cumcifiorij or the written law, that is, v/ho have a clearer rule of
duty and a pUiner promife.

5. i'o remove enrirelv the foundation of this obje«5\ion, the
apoiUe clears the real defign of circumcifion, and the chara6ler
of the perfon to whom the advantages do belong, ver. 28, 29*
wherein he ihews neg.itively, that the Jew to whom the pro-
miles do beiong is not eveiy one u'ho belongs to that nation, or
is outwardly a Jew; and that the circunicifion, touhichthc
promifes are abfolutely made, is not the outioard circumcifioUf
which is in the Jlejli^ ver. 28- ; but pofitively, that the Jew, to
whom the promifed bleffings belong, ii he who is a Jezv inward-
ly, that is, who has that invv'ard frame of heart which God re-
quires of bis people; and the circuaiC!fion,to which bleffings are
abfolutely promifed, is that invtard renovation of heast which
is the principle of the obedience required by, and accepted of
God, ver. 29.

This obje:iion being removed out of the way, the apoftle pro-
ceeds to anfvver an infiance againft what he has now faid in the
t'lree or four firft vcrfes of the 3d chap. The objedtion is propol-
cd ver. i, and is in (hort this, By your reafoning, would the
Jews fay, we have no advantage beyond the Gentiles, and cir~
cumcifion is utterly unprofitable. To this he anfwers,

1. By denying flatly what is alTerted in the objedion, declar-
ing, notwith'landing of all this, the Jews had every way the ad-
vantage.

2. Left this fhould appear a vain aflcrtion, he clears it by an
inftar.ce of the higheft confcqnencc, viz. that they had the oracles
of God, which the Gentiles v^'^nicd, wherein that relief againil
trjnfgreilions, which the Gentiles were firangers to, is reveal-
ed, as he exprefsly teaches afterwards, ver. 21. As if the
ijpof^le had faid, Though ye Jews fail of obedience, and fo are
cut ot} from julKncation by the \,yw as a covenant of works, yet
ye have a rii^ineouinefs rcveah^d to you in the law and the
prophets, ver. 21. to which the finner may betake himfelf for
relief; this the Gentiles who want the law and prophets know
nothing of. 3. He

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN I^ISTS. 229

3. He clears tliaf this Is a great advaritage, notvvithftanding
that many of the Jews were not the better for it, ver. 3. thus at
once anticipating an obje6lion that might be moved, and con«
firming what he had faid. JVhat if Jo me did not bdievs, that
is, though fome have fallen ftiort of the advantages of this re-
velation, (hall we therefore fay it was not in itfelf a privilege?
Nay, it is In itfelf a privilege, and they by their own fault in
not believing, have forfeited the advantages of it to themfelves
only ; for Jhall their unbdUf makt the. faith of God withotit
effed? That is, alTuredlv believers wiil not be the worfe dealt
with for the unbelief of others ; but ihey will obtain the advan-
tage of the promifcs.

We have infified much longer upon this context than was de-
figned, but we hope that they who coi fider that the apoftle's
arguments and his whole purpofes, are directly levelled at that
which is the main fcopc of thel'c papers, will not reckon this a
faulty dIgiefFjon. And befidcs, we fnall immediately fee the
ufefulnefs of this, in order to remove the foundation of a great
many objections drawn from this context by Mr. Humfrey ;
fome of whcfc notions we (hall confider after we have removed
one objection more, and it is this :

VJI. The words of the apollle Paul to the Athenians, A^s
xvii. 27. are made ufe of to this purpofe. The apofile tells
them in the preceding words, that the God whom he preached,
was he who made the zuorldsj kath made of one blood all nations
of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath de^
termined the tiims before appointed, and the bounds of their ha*
hitation \ that they fliould feek the Lord, if happily they might
feel after him and fnd him, though he be not far from every
one ef us : for in him we live and move and have our being.
The fum of what is pleaded from this teftimony amounts
to this, that men left to the light of nature are in duty bound
to feek the Lord ; that God is not fo far from them, but he may
be found ; and that if they will feel atter him, that is, trace
thefe dark difcoverics of him, in the works of creation and
providence, they may happily find hinu

For anfwer to this we fay, i. No word is here to be
firetched further than the occafion and fcope of the apofile re-
quires and allows. 2. The occafjon of this dif'ourfe was,
that Paul being at Athens, faw that city fet upon the worlhip
of idols, and overlooked the one true God, which moved him
with wrath, and gave occaiion to this difcourle; the evident;

fcopc

2^o AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

fcope whereof is to fliew, tbat they were to blame, that fhey
overlooked the true God, and gave that worihlp to idols, which
was only to be given to God. For convincing them of this,
3. Fie ihews, that (he true God, by his works of creation and
providence had in To far difcovered hinfelf, that if by thefe
works they fought after the knowledge of hiip, they might find
him fo far, or know »'o much, as to underfiand that he alone
was tiie true God, (o whom divine worlhip v/as due. 4. He
ownSj that indeed thefe difcoverics Vv^ere but dark, to wit, in
comparilon of the difcoveries he had made of himfelf in the
v.ord ; which is fufficientjv intimated by that expreffion cf
feeling after him, tiiey mi^hl find him, fo f^r as to deliver them
from that grofs idolatry and neglett of him they were involved
in. Here is all that the fcope holds out : but he does not fay,
that they might find him, fo as to obtain the faving knowledge
of him by theft works of providence ; but on '^he contrary l)e
tells us, thai God winked at the times of ignoranze, that is, feem-
ed as if he did not notice men, and in his hciv and fovereign
jufiice left them to find by their own experience, which by
any means they had, that they could not jsrrive to the Javing
knowledge of God; though they might, as has been jufi now
faiJ, have gone fo far as to difentangle themlelves fiom that
grofs idolatry for which he now reproves them. He does not
fay, that God then railed them to faving repentance, gav&
^hem any difcovery of his purpofe of msrcv, and thereon in-
vited them to peace and acceptance: but on the contrary, he
tells, that now he calls all mm every where to repent, ver. 30*
which fufhciently intimates that they had not that call before.
In a word, it is not that feeking or finding of God, or that
nearnefs to God which is here intended, that elfewhcre the
icripture fpcaks of, when it treats about m.en's cafe wI)o are liv-
ing under the gofpcl, and have God in Chrift revealed, and the
gofpel call to turn, to feek after and find liim to their own fal-
vdtion ; as the fcope of the place fuliy clears. Any one that
would fee this place fully conrulered, may fmd it done by the
jcarned Dr. Ovven, in (hat accurate, {hough Paort digreflion con-
cering univerfal grace, infcrted in hhlhro-og^Paiiiodap. p'g';'.3»
There likewife is that other fcripture, A6ks xiv. ver. 15, 16, 17.
-;rgely confidered. On which I ihall not now infii], feeing there
u nothing in it that has the lead appearance ofoppofilion to what
\ve have afferted, if not that God is there faid, not to have left
lirn/elf zuilhout a zoitncfs among the nations, in as much as he

did

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 20I

did good to them, gavi fruitful feafonSi &c. This is granted : but
thefe neceiraries oflifc are no vvitnefs that God defigned for them
mercy and forgivenefs, as has been made appear above, and as
the Spirit of God tells us there; for Godfuffcred them to walk
in their ozun way*

Vlil. Some allege that there is a law of grace connatural to man
in his lapfed ftate, and that in llibftance it is this, That God will
pardon finners upon their repentance t and they tell us, that
this law of grace is as much written (n the heart of lapfed man,
as the law of nature v/as written in the heart of innocent man.
To this purpofe fpeak^ Mr. Humifrcy in his Peaceable Difquifz-
lions* 1 and that with fuch an air of co-itidence, as might make
one expec\ better proo*/ than he has offered.

We lliall jafl: now exa.nine Mr. Humfrey's arguments. As
to the notion itfelf of a connatural law of grace written in the
hearts of all m.ankind in this lapfed condition, we look upon it as
abfoluteiy falfe. It contradiils fcripture, reafon and experience.
My delign excufcth me from the ufe of fcripture arguments. Ex-
perience I need not infift upon, after what has been already faid,
Reafon will not allow us to call any law connatural toman, fave
upon one of thefe three accounts ; either becaufe we arc born
with a6\ual knowledge of it ; or, becaufe it lies fo open and is
{o fuited to our rational faculties, that any man, who has the ufe
of reafon, can fcarce mils thinking of it, at leaft, refufe his
a (Tent to it, when it is propofed to him; or, finally, becaufe it
is nearly connected with notions and principles that are felf-evi-
dent, and is eafily deducible from them. Now this difcovery of
mercy to finners merely upon repentance is connatural in none
of thefe fenfes. I know no truth that is connatural in the firft
fenfe. The ingenious Mr. Locke has faid enough againft thisf.
In the fecond fenfe, it is not connatural. Who will tell me,
that this is a felf-evident propoiition, while fo great a part of the
more knowing and judicious part of mankind, not only refafe
their adent to it, but reje6f it as a plain untruth ? Yea, I doubt
if any man that underftands the cafe, and knows nothing of the
fatisfa(Slion of Chrifl-, will give his afient to it. In this laft fenfe
it is not connatural; for if it were fo, it were eafily demonfhrable
by thefe felf-evident principles, to which it is nearly allied :
which when Mr. Humfrey (liali have demonRrated from thefe

principles

* Peace. Difqaif. Chap. 4. pag. 56.

f Eflay on Huraan Undcriland- Lib. i.

^32 AN INCI.UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

principles, or any otlier for him, we (hall then confidcr it ; but
this I am anprehcnfive will never be done. In a wo^d, all
thele truths, which with ny tolerable propriety of fpeech can
be Cdlled connatural, if they are not felf-evidcnt, are yet fuch
as adinit of an eafy demondration. And it is fooliib to call
any truth connatural, unlcfs it is fuch, as either needs no proof,
or is eafily dcmonftrable. This is fufi-icisnt to cveithrow this
notion.

Before we confidcr the arguments which Mr. Humfrey ad-
vances for his opinions, I (bail otTer to the reader a more full
view of it in his own wonh* He then afl'erts, ** that there is
" a connatural law of grace written in t!:e heart of man, that
'* is, that this law of lapfed nature, this law of grace, or re-
** ^nedving law, is written in the heart of n)an in legard of
*' his fallen n jture, no !efs than the law of pure nature itfelf
** was. The law of nature, (fays be) as 1 take it, is the dic-^
** tates of ri.j;bt reafon, declaring to us our duty to God, to
'* ourfelves and to our neighbours ; and the light of the fame
reafon will dictate to us, when we have failed in that duty
to repent and turn to God, with tru^ing to his rr;crcy and
pardon if we do fo, and not elfe. We do find it legible in
our hearts, that God is good and wifely gracious (o confider
our loft eOate, and pity our infirmities and neceiTary frailty*."
After he has told us of a threefold promulgation of this law of
grace, under the patriarchs, by Mofes and Chrift, which he
calls three editions of the fame law ; he fubjoins, ** Now I
fav, that though the Heathen be not under (or have not)
this law of grace, in the third and lafl; fctting out, or in
the flate under the gofpel ; yet they arc under it (or have
it) in the (late of the ancients, or as they had it in the firft
** promulgation ; and upon fuppofition that any of them do,
** accordini^ to the light they have, live up in fincerity to this
** law, I dare not be the man that (hall deny, that through
'* the grace of our Lord Jefus Chriil (procuring this law or co-
'* venant for them, as for us and all the world) they fnall be
" faved even as wc." And a little before he fays, ** Thefc
" characters thus engraven in the heart of man, is the fame
** law of grace in its praciical contents, which is more large-
** ly paraphrafed upon in the fcriptures."

Surely tlie apoflle Paul bad a very different notion of the flate
of the Heathen v/orld from this gentleman, when he tells us

emphatically
* Peace. Difquif. Chr.p. 4. ip^g. k6, 57.

'

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. -233

tmphatically, that they are grangers from the covenants of
promife, that they are without God, that is, without the laving
knowledge of God ; for another fenfe the word will fcarce bear;
that they txxQ without Chriftt without hope, afar off, &c. But
it is not my deii©;n to offer fcripture arguments againil this an-
ll-fcriptural divinity. I leave this to others, and proceed to
his proof: nor fliall I in the confideration of them take notice
of every thing that might be juftly quarrelled ; but only hint
at the main faults.

1. Ke reafons to this effecTt : If there is no connatural law of
grace written in the heart of man, then none of thofc who liv-
ed before Mofes could be faved, in as much as there was then
no other law by which they could be faved*. This argument he
borrows from Suarcz, and concludes it triumphantly thus,
** Which is a truth fo evident, as makes the proof of that law
** by that reafon alone to be good."

But for all this oommendation, I think this argument has a
double fault, i. It proves not the point, viz. that there is a
law of grace written in the hearts of all men by nature ; but
only that there was fuch a law written in their hearts that were
faved. This argument is built upon a fuppofition that is plainly
falfe, viz. that there was no other way that they could be faved
but by the law of grace written in their hearts. This, 1 fav, \i
falfe ; for they were faved by the gofpel difcovery of Chrifl iii
the promife revealed to them by God, and wherein the^ gene-
rality of the Lord's people were more fully inftru6^ed by the
patriarchs, who were preachers of righteoufnefs. And this re-
velation and preaching was to them inftead of the written
word. Thus we fee this mighty argument proves jufl nothing.

2. He reafons from Abraham's pleading with God on be-
half of the righteous men in Sodom. Here he thinks it evi-
dent, that there were righteous men. He proves, that there
were none righteous then, according to the tenor of the cove-
nant of works, and therefore concludes, that thefe righteous
perfons did belong to, and were dealt with according to the
covenant of gracef. But now what does all this prove? Docs
it prove that thele men were under the covenant of grace, and
that they were dealt with according to the tenor of it? Well, I
grant it. But v/hat will he infer from this, that therefore all the

world
* Peace. Difquif, pag, r^6.
+ Ibid, pag. 6c.

F f

234 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

world were under the covenant cf grace, or fhall be dealt with
according to its tenor ? I would have thought that one vho has
read Suarez, might know that this conclufion will not follow.
If there had been any righteous men in Sodcm, it is true they
were under the covenant of grace ; and I add, if there be any
fuch in the world, they are under it ; therefore all the world
are fo ? Who fees not that this will not follow ? Again, fuppo-
iing that there were righteous men in Sodom, how will Mr.
Huinfrey prove, that they had no other rule of their life, or
ground of their liope, but his connatural law of grace? Whv
might they not have revelation ? Was not Abraham, to whom
God revealed himfelf, and made fo many gracious promifes,
well known to forric in Sodom ? Might not the fame of fuch a
perfon fo near eafily reach them ? Was not he the deliverer of
Sodom fome eighteen years before, and did not Lot his friend,
who was well acquainted with the revelations made to Abraham,^
live in Sodom ?

3. Mr. Mumfrey tells us, that the law of grace was in Adam's
and N-oah's time publiflied to all the world, and that it never
was repealed, and therefore all the world arc Hill under it, and
fo in a capacity of faWation*.

But I. This, were it granted, will not prove Mr. Humfrey's
connatural law of grace. The gofpel is revealed to all the inha-
bitants of England; therefore the law of grace is uritten in their
hearts : he rrjuil know very little of many people in England,
who will admit the confequence. 2. Nor will It prove, that
all the world arc under the gofpel revelation, even in its firO:
edition, to ufe Mr. Humfrey's words. Suppofe God once re-
vealed to the world, when it M'as comprifcd in the farr^ily of
Noah, the covenant of grace, and fo all this little world had the
external revelation*, will Mr. Humfrey hence infer, that all the
defrendants of Noah, after fo long a tra6^ of time, in fo many
dit^^rent nations, have 0111 the fame revelation? If he do, the
conlequencc is nought. It is as furc as any thing can be, that
very quickly mofl of the dcfcendants cf Noah lofl in fo far that
revelation, or at leail^, corrupted it with their vain additions to
that degree, that it could be of advantage to no man. 3. Nor
will what Mr. Humfrey talks of his repeal help cut his argument.
To deprive a people of the advantag-e of an external revelation,
there is no need of a formal repeal by a publifhed flatute ; it is'

enough

* Peace. Difquif. pag. 62.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 235

enough that men by their wickedncfs lofe all remembrance of
it, and futTcr it to fall into defuetude, and God fees not meet to
renew the revelation to them or their pofterity.

4. Mr. Humfrcy will prove his point by a fyllogifm, and it
runs thus, The doers of the law are juftified, Rom. ii. vcr. 13,
but the Gentiles are doers of the law; ergOj fome of the Gen-
tiles are juiiified before God.

The conclufion of this argument is the direct antithefis of that
pofition,which the apoftle makes it his bufinefs in that whole con-
text to prove, as is evident from the account already given of
that context. This is pretty bold. But let us fee how he proves
his minor. This he pretends to do from Rom. xiv. where it is
faid, that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the
lazVf and fo are doers of the Jaw, and confequently fliall be juf-
tified.

Well, is this the way this gentleman interprets fcripture upon
other occaiions ? I hope not. He has no regard to the fcope or
defign of the apo(lle*s difcourfe. AH that the apoOle fays
here, is, that the Gentiles are info far doers of the law, that their
doing is proof that they liave fome knov.'ledge of it. The per-
fons who here are faid to be doers of the law, are the very fame
perfons of whom the apoflle (ays, ver. 12. that they JJiall PeriJIi
loithout the lazo» But we have fully cleared this context be-
fore, and thither I refer the reader.

But Mr, Rumfrcy reforms his argument, and makes it run thus,
He who fincerely keeps the law, (hail be juftified according to
that of our Lord, keep the commandments if thou wilt enter in-
io eternal life; and that of the apoftle, God loill render eternal
life to every one that patiently continues in zuell-doing ; but, ar-
gues he, ibilJe Gentiles keep the law f.ncerely : and therefore
it is according to the gofpel, which requires not the rigour,
but accepts of fincere obedience.

As to our author's major, if the meaning of it be, that we
ihall be juftified before God for, or upon our fincere obedience,
according to the gofpel, I crave leave to differ from him ; nor
v.ill the fcripture's adduced by him prove it in this fenfe. The
firfi is a reference of a young man to the covenant of works,
v/ho was not feeking falvation, but eternal life by doing, in or-
der to difcoverto him his own inability and his need of Chiift.
But as to this commentators may be confulted. The other text
I have cleared above.

His.
* Peace. Difquif. pag. 61,

2^6 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. x.

Ill's nonor I flitly deny: well, but our author will prove
it by a new lylloglim, wliijh runs thus, He ivho yields fuch
obedience as the Jcivs, who arc clrcunicifed in he.irt, do, yields
that finccre obedience, upon which the golpcl accepts and juf-
tifies men ; but the Gentiles, or fome of them yield fuch obe-
dience.

I have already entered my diffent againft the lad claufc
of the m^jor, viz. That the gofpel juftifies men on fincere
obedience; but it is not my delign to debate the point of juf-
tific^tion with our author at this time, and fo I let this pro-
pofi'.ion p;j(s : yet I again deny the minor, which our author
cffays to prove thus. That fome of the Gentiles do obey in that
fenfe, in which the Jews, who are circumcifed inwardly or
in heart, do obey: this he pretends to demonilrate from the
apoflle's words, Rom. li. 26, 27. Th^.rejore if the uncircuyn^
cijion keep the righteoufnefs of ike law, &c. and fhall not unciT'
cumcifion, zvhich is my nature j if it fulfil the law.

But where will our author find the proof of his minor \xv
ibefe wordf.? There is nothing like it, unlefs he take the an-
tecedent of a hvpothctic propofitlon, for a plain afiertion.
But this ar-teccdsnt needs not be allowed poffible, and yet the
apoRle's v/ords and his affertion would hold good, and all
that he aims at be reached. Every one knows, that in fuch
propofitions, it is only the connexion \n^i is afTerted. As for
the meaning of the text, I have fhcwcd before that it is not for
OUT author's purpofe.

5. But our author has another argument, wliich he ihinks
is clearer than all the refl, and profcfies himfcif pCifedJy
fhicken with the evidence of it, as with a beam of light never
to be withftood, or any more to be doubted. Well this migh-
fv argument runs thius " Jlf U)is was fhe chief advantage ihc
♦* Jew had over the Gentile, that one had ihc oracles of God,
** and the other had not, then was there not this dltterence
** bcivveen them, that one is only in a Oate of natu'e, and
*' the other in a Hate of grace; or that one was in a capacity,
** a:id the other under an impoffibility of falvation. For this
^' were an advantj^ge of a far £",re.Uer nature. But this was the
** adv.-.r.tagc, Rom iii. 2, Chiefly htcaufe to them were com-
*' jTiitteji tie oracles oj God*;'' ergo.

1 xmi\i confefs, that I. am not Rricken with fo much evidence
upon the propofal of this argument, as it feems our author was.

To

Peace Difquir. pag. 63> 6

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 237

To me this argument appears a plain rophlfm. That the Jews
had the oracles of God, was a greater advantage, than our author
I'eems to think it. And while the apoftle calls it the cliicf advan-
tage of the Jews above the Gentiles, that they had the cracks of
God, how will our author infer from this, that they v/erc upon an
equal footing as to the means abfolutely neceflary for faivation;
or which is the fame, as to a capacity of faivation ; for certainly
lie that wants the means abfolutely neceflary to faivation is not
capable of faivation, in that fen fe that beUngs to our purpofc?
For my part 1 would draw the quite contrary conclufion from
it ; thus, The Jews had this privilege above the Gentiles, that
they had the oracles of God entrufted with them, wherein the
only way of faivation is revealed, being witnejfcd to by the
law and the prophets, Rom. iii. 21. and therefore had acccfs
to faivation: whereas on the other hand, the Gentiles wanting
divine revelation, which alone can difcover that righteoufnefs,
whereby a finner can be juftified, did want the means abfolutely
neceflary to faivation, and fo were not in a capacity of faiva-
tion. Now where is our author's boafted of demonllration ?
The occafion of his miftake is this, he once inadvertently fup-
pofed, that thefe two advantages, divine revelation, and ac-
cefs of faivation, were quite different, and that the one was
not included in the other. But of this enough.

Mr. Humfrey, I know, may fay, they had the law of grace
in their hearts. But that is the qucftion. Our author afferts
this; but he does fo without proof. Wc have all this while
been feeking proof of this: hitherto we have met with none.
We have met with fome fcriptures interpreted or wrefted into
a fenfe plainly inconfiflent with their fcope and intention,
without any regard had to the context and drift of the dif-
courfe, which is no fafe way of managing fcriptures.

Next, he infifls upon the ftory of the Ninevitcs' repentance.
They were without the church; it was a law of grace which
led them to repent. But had not the Ninevites divine revela-
tion? Did they not repent at the preaching of Jonah? How
will our author prove that Jonah never dropped a word, that
there was a poflibility of flopping the progrefs of the controver-
{y by their turning from their evil courfes? Did not Jonah
apprehend, that the event would be a further forbearance?
But may be fome may fay, Jonah had no mind they fl^ould be
fpared, and therefore would not drop any encouragement: but
we know that it was not of choice that he went there ; and

23S AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

as lie went there In obebience to God, fo no doubt, he who
}>ad been (o fharply difciplined for dilobcdience, would fpeak
what the Lord commanded him. Again, had they afTurancc of
pardon or eternal falvation upon their repentance? Was it
gcfpci-repentancc ? Or did it reach farther than a forbear-
ance of temporal jugdments?

Weil but the inftance of Cornelius feems more pat to his
purpofe. He was a Gemiic, was accepted with God; and
Peter tells us, that in every nation hi that fears God a?id zoorks
righiecufnefsj is accepted* But who will affurc me that Cor-
nv^lius was a ftranger to the fcriptures? Did he not know them ?
Did he not believe them? How could that be? It is plain he
was a profelyte and embraced the Jcwiili religion as to its fub-
i^ance, and that he did believe, fince he plea fed God 2x\d was
accepted. Now we know, that without faith it is unpoffible to
pleoje God, What wanted he then ? Why, he wanted to be in-
formed that the Meffiah promifed was corrLe, and that Chriji Jc'
J'dS was he. As to what the apollle fays of God's acceptance $f
prrfons of all natiom, any one that will give himfelf the trouble
of conficiering his fcope, and the circumftances of the place, will
fee, that it is nothing elfe but a comment upon the defign of the
vilion he got to iuRrudihim, that now God was to admit perfons
of all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews, to a participation of the'
covenant bleffinss.

DIGRESSION.

A fhort Digrejfion concerning God's Government of the Heathen
World, occajioned by the foregoing Ohjeclions, wherein an at'
tempt is made to account for the Occurrences that have the mojl
favourable AfpeB to thtm^ zinthout fappofing any Intention
or Defign of their Salvation, zvhich is adjefled as an Appendix
io the Anfnrtrs given to Mr. Humfrey*s ObjeBions, wherein it
is made evident^ That there is ni need to fuppofe the Heathens
under a Law or Gavernment of Grace.

IF I (hould here flop, the perfons with I whom have to do, might
poOTibly allege, that the main ftrength of their caufe remains un-
rouched, and the moft ftraitening difficulty that prelfes ours is
not noticed. The fhort of the matter is, they inquire. What
government are the Heathen world under? They conceive it muft

be

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 239

be allowed a government of grace, fince they arc not dealt by
according to the demerit of their fins. Poffibly we might pro-
pofe fome queftions that would be no Icfs hard to fatisfy,by thofe
who talk of an unlvcrfal law of grace : but this would not remove
the difficulty, though it might cmbarrafs the oppofers of our
fcntiments. I (ball therefore open m.y mind in this matter, and
ofFcrwhat occurs on this head. If I miflake,itwill plead fomewhat
for me, that the fubjcf^, fo far as I know, is not ufually fpoken
of by others, and I have not of choice meddled with it, but
was led to it bv mv fubje<S^, that requires fome confideration ©f
it. If we ftate right thoughts in this matter, it will give light
to many things, that othcrwife are dark. What I have to fay,
I ihail propofe in the fubfequent gradation.

I. Man was originally made under a law that is holy, good,
righteous, equal and juft ; this law required of ail fubje<fted
to it exact, pun6^ual and pcrfe<^ obedience ; and for its pre^
fervation it was armed with a penal fan£llon, anfwerable to
the high and fender regard, which the infinitely holy, wife
and great God had for the honour of that law, that was the
declaration of his will, bore the imprefs of his authority and
reprefentation of all his moral excellenciest And befides all
this, he alfo propofed a reward, fuitable to his wifdom and
goodnefs, for which his faithfulnefs became pledged. It is
not needful to launch out in proof of the feveral branches of
this aflertion. That man was made under a law, is quefiioned
by none, but athiefis ; and they have their mouths fufficiently
(lopped of old and late by many pcrfons of worth and learning.
That this law is holy, jufl; and good, cannot without nota-
ble injury to the Deity be denied. That it exadled perfeft
obedience, is fo evident, that no perfon, who thinks what he
fays, can deny it. A law not requiring perfedl obedience,
to its own precepts, is a law not requiring what it requires,
which is plain nonfenfe. A pofterior law may not require
perfe6l obedience to a prior : but every law requires perfcfl:
obedience to itfelf. That this law was armed with a penal
fan*5^Ion is evident from the wifdom of the lawgiver, who
could not enadl fuch laws, which he knew men would tranf-
grefs, without providing for the honour of his own authority.
Befides, If there is no penal fand^Ion, it is not to be expect-
ed that laws could ever reach their end, efpecially ss thing::
have always fiood with man- But were all thofe proofs given
up, the cfledls of vindictive jufilce hi the v/orld^ with the fears

(liar

240 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE c^ap. >c.

that finners are under, left all thefe are only the beginning of
forrows, fufficiently confirm this truth, and moreover alTure us,
that it is fuch a penalty as fuits every way the offence in its
nature and aggravations. But 1 know none of thofe things
will be queftioned by thofe, whom we have mainly under view
at prefent,

2. All the children of men, in all ages and in all places of
the world, have been and are guilty of violations of ihis law.
We have heard the deifts owning this before; and ChriQians
will not deny it. Deills would have thought it their intereft to
deny it; but fince, it is unqueftionable that the generality of-
fend, in inftances paft reckoning. If they had affinned, that a-
ry one did, in no inllance offend, they might have beeri re-
quired to make good their affertion: but this they could not do.
Thev duril not condefcend. And therefore it mull be owned
that the bed, not in one inftance, but in many, violate this
law.

3, Upon account of thefe violations of his holy and righteous
law, all mankind, every individual, and every generation of
men, that have lived in the world, arc obnoxious to juRice.
By thofe fins they have forfeited any claim they might have
laid to the reward of perfect obedience, and are liable to the
penalty in the fan6^ion of the law. And God might, at any-
time, have righteoufly inflidled it, either upon any individual
or any whole race of men. I determine not noW what that
punifhment was. They who talk that our offences arc fmall,
and extenuates them, feem fcarcely impreffed with fuitable
notions of God, and I doubt will not be fuftained judges com-
petent of the qualities of offences and injuries done to his ho-
nour. But whatever the punifhment is, eternal, or not, which
I difpute not now, bccaufe we agree about it with thofe, whom
we now have under confideration, it is certain none can prove
that it is all confined to time, or that any temporal punifhment
is fufHcient for the Icafl offence that is committed againfi God.
And it is alfo clear, that, upon one's finning, the penalty might
be prefently infli6\ed, without any injuftice, provided the pe-
nal fan6^ion were fuitable and jufi in its confiitution, as of ne-
ceflitv it mufl be, where God made the law and confiituted the
puftifhmcnt,

4. Although God righteoufly might have cut off any gene-
ration of men, and fwept the earth clean ; yet has he feen
ineet to fpare finners, even multitudes of them, for a long time.

A

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 241

A piece ofcondu^^ truly aftoniftilng ! Efpecially it would ap-
pear fOf if we underftood how much God hates (in. The on-
ly reafon why the Heathen world hath not admired it more,
and been more extenfivc in their inquiries into the reafons of
it, is becaufe they had but very fliort and imperfe6t notions
of God's holinefs, and the evil of (in. They took notice
of God s forbearence of fome notorious offenders. Some of
them were (lumbled at it, and fome of them endeavoured to ac-
count for it. But the wonder of God's fparing a world full of
finners, was little noticed, and though they had obferved it,
they would have quickly found thcmfelves as much at a lofs here,
as any where elfe. The fcriptures have not gratified the curio-
iity of men with fuch a full account, as our minds would have
dc(ired, that arc too forward to queflion him particularly about
his ways, who gives an account of none of his matters : yet fome
reafons of this condu<5t are dropped that may fatisfy the hum-
ble. I. God made a covenant with Adam, wherein his polleri-
ty, as well as himfelt" were concerned and included. They were
to be gainers or lofers as he acquitted himfelf well or ill. This
tranfa6\ion, I know, is denied by fome Chriftians. I (hall
not difpute the matter with them : others have done it. I now
take it for granted. And if they will not fuppofe if, it is but
the lofs of this reafon. And let them if they can put a better
in its room. Upon fuppofition, that there was fuch a tranfac-
tion, and that it was juft, as we muft allow all to be, whereof
God is the author, it was not only equal, but in point of wif-
dom, apparently nccelTary, or at Jeaft, highly fuitablc, that
all concerned in this tranfa6\ion (hould be brought into being,
to reap the fruits of it. But this was impolTible if the world
had not been fpared. 2. God, in fparing the world, had a
defign of mercy upon fome. And many of them were to pro-
ceed from fomt of the worft (inners. He defigned to favc fome
in all ages, and in moft places. Their progenitors mud there-
fore, of neceflity, be kept alive. He bears with the provoking
carriage of evil men ; becaufe out of their loins he intends
to extract others, whom he will form for the glory of his
grace, 3. God is patient toward (inners, to manifell the equity
of his future juflice upon them. When men are fpared and
continue in (in, the pleas of infirmity and miflake are cut off,
and they are convi6led of malice. They are filenccd,and on-
lookers fatisfied, that feverity is juftly exercifed on them.

G s

542 An inquire into the chap, x.

Quanta Dei 9;:a^Ts Judicium tardum eft, tanfo magis jnftmn^.
As patience, uhile it is exercifed, is the fiJence o't his juaice;
io when it is abjfed, it filences men's complaints againfl his
juftice. Other reafons of this conduct ue might glean" from the
fcrintures : but my defigh allows me not to infill. Nor indeed
do they dcfcend {o low as to fatisfy curious wits. Lo thcfe
are parts of his ways and aims, bui hoic little a portion V5
keard, that is, even by revelation, knotcn of him'/ fays Job,
chap. xxvl. iii^,

5. The world, or finners in it, are fpared, not by a proper
reprieve, that is, a delay of punilhment, after the offenders are
taken up, queifionsd, tried, conviaed, and folemnly condemn-
ed; the v/ay, manner and time of their punifiiment fixed, by
a judicial application of the o^eneral threatening of the law in
this particular cafe, by the judge comipetent, and the fentence
plainly intimated ; a delay of the execution after this, if it is of
the judge's proper motion, if the offender is not imprifoned, if
he is employed, and if favours are conferred upon hiui, and o-
bedience required of him, gives hopes of impunity and efcape ;
and if the perfon*? commit not new offences, without, at leaft,
an appearance of iufincerity, they are very feldom condemn-
ed upon the firft fentence: but finners are fpared by a for-
bearance, or wife and jufl connivance, if the word would not
offend. The Governor of the world knows and fees the car-
riage of finners, is aware of their fins, and keeps fiience for a
time ; but yet keeps an eye upon them, calls them not intoquef-
lion, puts oflfthe trial, lakes them not up, as it were, and
Tvinks at them. Now all this may be jufi ly done for a time ; the
finners may be employed, and a^s of bounty, for holy and wife
ends, may be conferred on them, and exercifed towards them,
and that without the lead injur{ice,without any dcfign of pardon-
in.q: ; as the fequci of th'is difcourfe will more fully clear.

6. This forbearance of God is wife, juff and holy : for 1, Hp
is the only competent judge, as to the time of puniihing ofi^endeis.
It cannot be made appear, that he may not thus delay, even
where he has no thought of pardoning. 2. It implies no approba-
tion of the faultR formerly committed, or thofe they may commit^
during this interval of time, fince he has fufficiently feOified a-
gain!) them by the laws he has made, which forbid them by the
penalty annexed io thofe laws, and by examples of his ieverity

upon
* « The flower that the Judgment of Gcd is, it is the ir.cre jull."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 245

upon others, which have not beea wanting in any generation.
Thefe may fuflficiently acquit him, however for a time he keeps
iilenr, and conceal, as it were, his knowledge of the offences of
jome, or his refentments againii them, on account of them. 3. He
accompiilhes purpofes worthy of him; which are fufticient to juf-
tify him in this conduct, while he keeps iilence, and carries to
them as if there were no offence, or he knew none, and they go
on in their rebellion, or fecret pra(Stices againft his law and go-
vernment. Impudent offenders have no place left, either for
(ieniai or exeufc of their crimes, or complaints againfi the fe-
verity of his refentments. Spectators are made to lee that it
is not infirmity or miilake, but fixed alienation or enmity that
is fo Iharply punilhed. He ferves hinfelf of them, and makes
them, though they mean not To, carry on the defigns of his glo-
ry, either in helping or trying, or bringing into being perions,
whom he has defigns of mercy upon. And fure he may juitlydo
this, fince jiot only he has the beft title to their obedience;
but he has all the reafon and right in the world to ufe that life,
while he fpares it, for what purposes he pleafes, which they have
forfeited tojuftice. Who can blame him, if fometimes he fpj.res
fecret plotters, and lets them goon till their plots are fufficienily
ripened for their convicfion, and others' fatisfa(Stion. Nor is
ihere af^y ground to quarrel, if he deal even with tiic worft, as
equal judges do with the mother, guilty of fomc manifcft crime;
they not only fpare and delay the execution, till the child whom
(hey defign mercy to. Is brought forth ; but do not take notice
of her, or intimate even a purpofe of puniihment, till after-
wards, iell the child (liould fuffer by the mother's defpair
and grief. 4. This is yet more remarkably jul^ in God, who
can on the one hand fecure the criminal, fo that jufiice lliall not
luffer by the delay, and on the other, that t'ne criminal fha'l
not run out into thofe impieties, that would crol's the ends, en-
danger the fafety, or wrong the reputation of his governmcnf,
w,ith thofe who are capable of making an equal eliimatc of
tilings.

7. It was every way fuitable and neceffary that the perfons thus
fii;ared,(hould becontinucd under a moral governmenf.They were
not to be ruled by mere force; i. Becaufe they are, while under
fuch a forbearance, capable of fome fort of a moral government.
When a prince deals with perfons, whom he knows to be on
treaibnable plots agalnO: his government, and conceals his re-
fentment, h* (i'lU manages ihem as fubjecfG, and continues them

under

244 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ckap. x.

under a government ; nor is he faulty in doing fo. 2. They arc
not, while under fuch a forbearance, capable of any other p;o-
vcrnment ; for if once the Ruler of the world begin to deal in a
way of force and juflice with them, then thir. forbearance is at
an end. 3. It were a manifeft reproach to the Governor cf the
world, if they were fuppofed under no government at all. be-
fides, on this fuppofiiion, the ends of his forbearance could not
be reached. And moreover, the moial dependence cf creatures
on their Crcator,which can only be maintained either in ths way,
or by putting them under the penal fandlion of the law, would
bediflolved, which cannot be admitted.

8. Sinners under this difpefation are dill under the law of crea-
ation : it is true this law can no longer be the means of convey-
ing a title to the great and principal reward ; but that is their
own fault, and not the governor's nor the law's. But notwlth-
Aanding of this, they are fiill under it, and it continues the in-
ftrument of God's government over them. For i. The ground
of obedience flill continues, although fome of the motives, vea,
the principal encouragement, I mean, eternal rewards, are for-
feited. The obligation to obedience can never otherwife be dif-
folved, than by the infiifiing of a capital puniflimenf, which puts
out of all poflibility of yielding any obedience. Spme, I knciv
make the power aiid right of obliging, to confjft merely in a
power of rewarding and punlthing: but this iseafily cpnvi^led cf
fa Ifc hood : and although the learned Mr. Gaftrcl has advanced
this, in his fermcrs at Boyle's Le^^ure, yet vvc have no reafcn
?o receive it, as Beconfal in his treatife of the Lazu of Nature,
and others have fufficiently c'earcd. 2. This law is lufficient to
ar(wer the dcfigns of this forbearance, and God's rule ever thern
who live under it aijd by it. It has not Jcfl its directive pow-
er ,- but it is able fufficiently to inOruCl, at leafl: in thefc du-
^tics, either as to God, ourfelves cr others, that are of abfolutc
nccflBty to keep fome order and dpccium in the world, carry
en regularly the propagation of n^ankind, and the like. It is
manifcdly fufiicient to be a tcO to try men's willingnefs to obey,
and convince rren of wilfulnefs in their rebellion ; and to be a
Handing njonument of God's hoiinefs ; yea, it continues to
have that force upon the confciences of the generality, as to be
a check Jo keep tiiem from running into enormities fubverfive
of ail order and fociely, and deftructive to the other ends of
'-OQ^'i patic.-iCe. 2. Experience fuiiy cltar^^ that men ftill pay

reear^

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 245

regard to this law, and this Is the only law that mcndcftltutc of
a revelation own.

9. While God faw meet to continue this forbearance, it was
not neceflary nor fuitable, that he (hould plainly, particularly
and folemnlv intimate all the length he defigned to carry his
refentments againft offenders, i. There was no neceffity of
this towards the clearing of Gcd's holincfs ; this being fufficient-
ly done by the promulgation of the law, its penally, and ma-
ny particular examples. 2. This would have undone the dif-
pcnfation whereof we have been fpeaking. 3. This is utterly
inconfiftent with all the defigns of it. Men had been driven
into defpair, and fo all moral government had been diflblved.

10. Yea, it was confiftent with his holinefs, and fuitable to
his wifdom, to permit men to fall into fin, very great fins, and
for a time to go on in them. God can neither do any thing
that is unworthy, nor omit any thing that is worthy of him, of
3 moral kind. And it is certain in fa«5t, that fuch fins and
enormities he has permitted : and therefore, however flrange
it appears to us, that a holy God, who could have re-
ftralned, fbould permit thofe things ; yet fincc he, who can
do no evil, has done it, wc muft conclude this altogether con-
fident with his holinefs. And it is manifeftly fo with his wifdom,
fince no injury is done to his holinefs. For 1. By this means
finners give full proof, what a height their enmity againft God
is come to. 2. They are the fitter to excrcife his own peo-
ple. And 3. They are riper for the ftrokes he defigns to in-
fli6l on them.

11. Notwithftanding of all this, it was meet and neccfia-
ry that fome offenders ihould be remarkably punllhcd, and
fomc bounds fet to offences ; and more efpecially thofe of-
fences which crofs the defigns of God's forbearance, and tend
to diflfolve the government and order, which it was neccf-
fary God (hould maintain in the world. And hence it has
come to pafs, that not the greatcfi fins, fuch as thefe certainly
are, which immediately ftrike againft God, but thefe which
ftrikc againft order and government, have been moil remarka-
bly punifbed in all ages, as might be made appear by innumer-
able inftances of the remarkable punilbment cf murders, trea-
sons, and undutifulnefs to parents. This is congruous to jiif-
tice, not only on the above-mentioned account, but on this,
that the notices concerning thefe lafl fort of evils are much more
clear in raoft inftances, than thefe which refpect the former.

12. It

245 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. x.

T2. Tr Is every way fuit.ible to the wifdom, (incerlty and ho-
i'neis of God ; yea, and of abfolute neccfiity to the defign of
this forbearance, that h^ exercife bounty in lefiTer things ; fucii
as the good things of this life are : and that he vouchfafe thofe
inenta] endowments to fome of the fpared finners, which are ne-
ceiJary toward the maintenance of that government, which God
xvas to keep up among them; fuch are civil wifdom, inven-
tion, courage, &c. Thefe he may give without the leaft inti*
luation of any dcfign of fpecial mercv. For what relatioa
Lave theie things to fpecial mercy, which are heaped in abun-
dance on, the word of men. However, that it was fit thefe
tilings would be beftowed upon fome in this cafe, is evident ;
becaufe, i. Eternal rewards are now forfeited, and there would
have been nothing to induce to obedience if this had not been,
:^. Hereby he gives a witnefs to his own goodnefs, which ag-
gravates oifencss committed again»^ hiai. 3. Hereby he draws
on men to obedience, or rather to cjo thcfe pieces of fervice,
which are in their own nature, fuch as he allows and requires,
although they defjgn not his fervice, but their own pleafure and
profit. 4. Hereby he clears fcores •. ith finners, while he fufFers
FiOt what Is even but pretended fervice, to pafs without a re-
ward, which is fufficient to ihew what a kind rewarder he
would have been, if they had indeed obeyed. 5. Hereby he
tuts ofF ail excufe for their continuance in difobedience. 6. This
condu6i gives them an innocent occafion of discovering latent
v.'ickednefs, wliich otherwife they would have had no accefs to
fhew, and keeps from that nmr defpair which would have
marred the defi 2,n of God's forbearance.

13. Xtiefe vj-jchfafements of divine bounty lead to a fort of.
repentance; not that to which the promife of pardon is joined in
the gofpeL For i. They give eminent difcoveries of the good-
nefs of that God whom we have offended, and confequenily of
the foijy of cfiendiiig him, which na'urally leads to lorrow or
regret. 2. They ilrengthen, as all benefits do, the orignal ob-
ligation to obedience. 3. They let us fee, that obedience is
r.ot altogether fruiiiefs, fince they may expecl lei's levere rclent-
mer.ts if they return ; yea, -may expect fome Ihare in this bounty,
and are not under an impofBbility of mercy, tor any thing they
can know.

14. After all, I do yet fee no rcafon to think, that they, who
are luercly under fuch a dii'penfatipn as this, which I take to be
the cafe of the Heathen world, are under a Liw of grace ; which

aiiuresj

PRlNCirLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 247

alTures, that upon a return to forn^er obedience, fins 0 all be
entirely pardoned, and they have accefs to eternal rewards. I
grant it highly probable, that if God had not intended pjace to
lome, fuch a dlfpenfation had never been, i admit, that this
difpenfation is fubfervient to a defign of grace upon fome. I
further allow, that there is no abfolute impoffibility of the fal-
vaticn of perfons, however deeply guilty, who are net vet un-
der the penalty : but if they are faved, it mud be by fome
means orvvaV revealed by God, and luperadded to all the for-
mer, which I can never fee to amount to any law of grace,
fmce it is manifeft, i. That all this may be exercifed toward
them whom God in the end defigns everlafiinglv to puniPn. He
7/7^^1-^ ^"^^'"^ ^ong-fuffering to the vefjels of wrath fitted tc
dejtriitnon, 2. 1 here is nothing in this whole difpenfation,
that in the lead intimates any purpofc of God to pafs hv former
olTenccs, either abfolutely or upon condition. 3. In fa6\ it has
never been found, that ever this difpenfation hassled any one to
that fincere repentr.nce, which muft be allowed necelTarv, in
order to pardon. And I dare not fay, that God ever did ap-
point means for fuch an end, which after fo long a trial fhould
never anfwer it. 4. All whom God has pardoned, or of whom
we may fay, that he has brought them to repentance, have been
brought by other means. So that upon the whole, I fee no
ground for afleriing an univerfal law of grace.

As what has been above faid takes cfi' the principal pretence
for fuch an univerfal law of grace, u-hich fome feem {o fond of ;
fo if any fuch is aiTerted, it muft be owned to be a law o^ a
very univerfal tenor, as being that wherein all mankind are
concerned. It^ muft be allowed a law defigned to take olfthc
force of the original law, concreated with our nature, that ne-
ceflTarily refults from the nature of God and man, and their na-
tural relation, at leaft as to one inftance, I mean the penal fanc-
tTon, in cafe of fin. It muft be allowed to be a law not merely
djredive as to duty, but defigned to tender undeferved favours
to finful man. Now he that can think a i^w, (or call them many)
dubious anions, that is, aaions capable of another, vea, con^
trary conflruction, afuffici'ent promulgation of fcch a 'lavv, as is
of fo univerfal extent, as derogates, atleaft in one inOance, of fo
great moment, from a law fo fiVmly and folcmnlyeftablifned, with
out any known provifion for its honour, injured bv fo m.any fins;
and finally that tenders fuch great favours to the Uanft^relTbrscf

245 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE giia? xr«

it, may believe what he pleafes. I mufl own, this one confi-
deration is with me enough to fink that notion.

But to conclude this whole matter, upon which we have dwelt
fo long. Upon the nicefl furvey of occurrences in the Heathen
world, lean difcern nothing that favours of any acquaintance
with that forgivencfs that is with God ; untefs it is that general-
ly entertained notion o^ xh^ placability of their deities. This no-
tion, I make no doubt, had its rife from revelation^ nnd was
continued bv tradition. And feveral things did concur to the
prefervation of this, while other notices that had the fame rife
were loft ; the apparent necelTity of it to man in his prefent fm-
ful condition ; the fuitablen^fs of it to lay a foundation for thai
worfliip, to which the remaining natural notices of a Deity urged
them, and which was of indifpenfible neccffity toward the fup-
port of human government ; the darknefs and blindnefs of men
as to the exceeding finfulnefs of fin; the holinefs of God's na-
ture, and the ftrong inclination all men have to be favoura-
ble, even to their faults, did contribute not a little toward its
Support, Finally, this placability did not fo much rcfpc6l the
one true God, of whom they had very little knowledge, as
their own li<Stitious deities, which they put in the room of the
true God. And it is obvious, that when men took upon them
to fet up gods, they would be fure to frame fuch as might
agree with their own apprehenfion^, and pafs by their faults
with as little difficulty as they committed them. Whatever there
is to as this, we have no reafon to think that this Is a natural no-
tice, it being neither felf-cvidcnt, nor certainly deducible from
principles that are fuch.

CHAP. XI.

Proving the Infufficiency of Natural Religion to eradicate our
Inclinations to Sin, or fuhdue its Power.

I Think we have faid enough to demonf^rate the infufficiency
of natural religion, to fatisfy us as to the way how we may
obtain the removal of guilt or xhc pardon of fin* Let us now
fee whether it is able to remove the corruption cf nalure, and
fubduc or eradicate our inclinations lo fin.

Before we enter dire«S^ly on this, it will not be Impertinent,
if it is not plainly necefl'ary, that we fay fomcwluU concern-
ing

PRIMCIPLES OF THE MODERN DESITS. 14$

ing the nature of this corruption* We (hall therefore offer
the few following hints concerning it.

!• It is moft certain, that man has corrupt inclinations. I
think this will fcarce be denied ; fince it is beyond contradic-
tion evident, that the bulk of mankind in all ages, have run
headlong into thofe courfes which reafon condemns as con-
trary to the law, under which we arc made. The law con-
demns, reafon juftihes the law, and proclaims thofe courfes
unworthy of us ; confcience checks and fometimes torments,
and yet finners run on. Can all this be without corrupt in-
clinations fwaying, yea, as it were, forcibly driving that way?
No fure.

2. It is Certain, that not only there are fuch incli-
nations in man, but that they arc exceedingly ftrong and forci-
ble. Our own reafon condemns thofe a6tions, and cries (hame
on the fmner's confcience, prcfages the refentments of the
righteous God, the evil e{fe6ls of them are vifible, and they
are felt to be de[lru6live to our health, ruining to our reputa-
tion and eftates, inconfiflcnt with our inward peace ; yea, in
a icw inllances, human law provides terrible punifhments :
and yet, in fpitc of all thefe flrong barriers, we are carried
down with the l^reara : nor can the mofl rational confidcra-
tions, from intereft, honour or prudence ftop our career. Cer-
tainly the force of inclination, that carries over all thefe, mud
be great.

3. It fcems plainly natural and Congenial to us. I (hall not
nicely inquire in what fenfe it is fo. 1 am far from thinking,
that our natures as at firft made, were created with it. I have
faid enough before to prove this impoflible : but I mean, that
as our natures now are, however they came to be fo, it is an in-
feparable appendage of them, cleaves to them, and proceeds not
merely from cuftom, and is not acquired, though it is often im-
proved by cuftom. Now this feems evident from many things,
I. The univcrfality of it. All men, in all ages, in all places,
and in all circumftances,havc fuch vitious inclinations. I do not
fay that every individual is proud, ambitious, covetous, revenge-
ful, paffionate and luftful. No, but every one has fome one or
other of thefe, or the like, breaking out ; which fays, the
fpring is within,and is ftrong ; though the conftitution of our bo-
dies, the climates we live under, our education and circumf^ances
of life, have dammed in fome of them, and cutout channels for
others of them. Now it is plainly unaccountable how all men
fhoiild be thus corrupt, if not naturally fot No parallel inftance,

H h in

^5o AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xi.

in any fort, can be given, where ciny thing not natural and con-
l^enial, at leaft as to its principle and inclination, has obtained
Tucb an univerlal fway. 2. It waits not till we are grown and
framed by education, cunom, engagement and inventions ; but
makes ftrong, difccrnible, and fenfible eruptions in infancy
and child- hood. As foon as wc are capable, and very ofr, while
one would think us fcarceiy (o, by reafon cf age, wc are proud,
revengeful, covetous, &c. vvhicii fays this is congenial 3, It
Is often fcen, that thcfe corruptions break out in cur young
years, which neither education, example, circumllanccs, nor
any thing elfe but a corrupted nature, can give any encourage-
ment to. 4. Yea more, how ftrong are theTe inclinations, and
that very-early, which are dlfcouraged, oppofed, borne down,
and have all outward occafions cut off from them. One is paf-
ficnate among calni people, though he is punilhed for it and
fees it not. Another is ambitious and proud among fober peo-
ple, in mean circumilances, where there is no ex2mple to ex-
cite arnbiiion, no theatre to a6t it upon, and tlic beginnings arc
curbed by precept, inftru6\ion, reproof, challifcments and ex-
ample. 5. Thofe things are evidently interwoven with, and
ftrengthened by the very conftitutions of our bodies, and cli-
mates under vv-hich we live. Hence there are domeftic and na-
tional vices, which cleave to fom.e families and nations. 6. The
beilj the mofl fober, and freell from difcernlbie eruptions of
cctruptionj yet do own they find the inclinations flrong, and
driving them into indifcernible ztis ccrrefponcient to them.
7. They who deny the force and being of thefe inclinations,
and who pretend that the will of man is able to mafter all
thefe, yet cannot but otvn, that there are fuch inclinations;
and as for the pretended ability cf the will to conquer them,
thev give the leaR proof of it who pretend moil: to it : for if thu
will is thus able, and if, as they pretend, they have fufficient
moral ars^uments which perfuade to it, why is it not done ? What
ftops it V 8. I (hall only farther offer the teftimonies of fome
few among the Heathens. Timus the LocriaUy who lived be-
fore Plato, tells us in his difcourfcs, '* That vitiofity comes
** fiom our parents and firft piinciples, rather than from ne-
*' cligence and diforder of public manners; brcaufe we never
** part from thofe actions which lead us to imitate the primitive
** fins cf our parents *.*' Plato tells us, that, ** In times paO:

'' the

* Gale's Cotirt cf the GcntiJes, Part 4. Lib, i. Cap. 4. Par, 2,

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 251

'■ the divine nature flcv.rill-icd in men ; but at length it mixed
** with nK>rtal,and c^vOfcoiTrr.v r;9'^^ human cullcms prevailed to the
*' ruin of mankind : and fromi this fource there followed an in-
** undation of evils on m.en. Hence he calls corruption voo-©. r
*« xxia (pvTivt the natural dIfeafe,or dli'"eafe of nature, becaufe the
*' nature of mankind is greatly degenerated and depraved, and
*' all !Tunner of dlforders infeft human nature : and men being
** impott»nt, are torn in pieces by their own lufts, as b)^ fo ma-
** ny '-vi'd horfes. Hence Democritus is faid to affirm the dif-
** eifesofthe foul to be fo great, that if it were opened, it
** would appear to be a fepulchre of all manner of evils."
Ariftotle tells us, ** That there is in us iomewhat naturally
** repugnant to right reafon, '7T'.:pvz^^ cc-^ii;3xrov ro? Xoy .*" Sene-
ca, Epilt. r^o. gives us a very remarkable account of his thoughts
in thir. r.iailer. The whole were worthy to be tratifcribed, but
it is too long. I ihall tranflate a part of it. ** Why do we
** deceive ourfeives ? Our evil is not from without ; It is fixed
** in our very bowels, Jlibi f All fins are in all men, but all
do not appear in each man: he that hath one fin hath all.
We fay, that all men are intemperate, avaricious, luxuri-
ous, malignant ; not that thefe fins appear in all ; but be-
caufe they may be, yea, are in all, ahiiougti latent. A
** man may be guilty, though he do no hurt. Sins are per-
fect before they break forth intoeffed." It is worthy of our
cbfervation, what Mr. Gale tells us, after he has quoted thefe
words, viz. tl^at Janfenius breaks forth into a rapture upon
hearing thefe philofophers philofophize m.ore truly about the
corruption of man's nature, than Pelagians and others of late.

But the Oraclss of Reajon tell us, that it is denied " that
** the kpfe of nature is univerfal, becaufe fome through the
** courfe of their lives, have proved more inclinable or prone to
** virtue than to vice." I have fpoke to this before, but I add,
I. This is not enough, that they are more prone to virtue than
to vice: for the queftion is, ¥/hether they have inclinations to
vice? and net. Whether the contrary are Wronger? 2. This
cannot be preter^ded to be the cafe with many. Now, fmce the
queftion is about a religion fufncienl for all mankind, if any of
them have fuch a diftemper, and natural religion provide nd
cure, it is infulHcient. 3. It is not. Whether there are men
that have ht<za prone to fome virtues, and averfe from iome vi^

ces,

* ArL^, E:hick, Lib. t. Cap. 13. t ^' F.lfe where,"

252 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xi.

ces, poflibly fcandalous fins? But, Whether there have been
men inclined to no fin, prone to all virtue? If they affert iuch
a one, Hrew us the man. We cannot believe any fucb, fince
all wc know are othcrwife, till we lee a condefccnfion. 4. It is
not the bufinefs whether men have done virtuous a61s ordinarily,
that is, the material a6ls of virtue : for corruption may rum
freely out in this hidden channel. A man may be ambi-
tious, proud, and live among perfons, with whom vice is de-
cried, open vice I mean, and therefore affeds a great exa^t-
nefs as to morality. This is good : but this is all but a facrifice
to ambition. One luft Is the principal idol, all the reft are fa-
crificed to it. Corruption turns not troublelome, and is pieafed,
if it get vent any way. A ftrong fpring, if It can get a vent
under ground, may prefs for a vent above ; yet it will caiiiy hp.
rcftrained there. •

New this being the cafe plainly with man, it Is impofiible for
him to reach happinefs, while this corruption remains ; nor
can he be fure of acceptance with God. While things are
thus, nature is imperfe6i, man is out of order, reafon, the no-
bler part, is at under, and paflions, the brutal part,^bear the
the fway. This Is more unfeemly, than to fee fervarJs on.-
hoy/eSf whilf. princes ivalk on Joot. There I3 continual occa-
fion for rcmorfe, checks, challenges of confcicnce, and fears
of the refentment of a holy God. There can be no firm confi-
dence of accefs to God, or near fellowship with him, while
we entertain his enemies In our bofom ; nay, have them inter-
woven, as it were, with our natures.

The deifts J know make a horrible outcry againfl Chriftians,
for airerting this corruption of nature. Herbert in his book
de Veritatey has many b'ttcr invet^ives againfl: the afferters of
it ; and yet, overcome with the evidence of truth, he is obliged
frequently to acknowledge it plainly: yea, not only docs he
acknowledge it, but he pleads this directly, in excufe of the
moft abominable wickednefs. After he has told us, that the
temperament or conRitution of our bodies have a powerful influ-
ence to fway us to fome fms, he fubjoins, ** Quo paSo hand
** italevi ntgotio damnandos exiflimo, qui ex f^ioa-vyKo'oc&ia. alicjua
** pravaricaniur. Q^uemadmodum i(ritur flagitii haud jujli ar^
** gueris lethargum, dcfidaii, out hydropicum bibacera \ ita Jar-
■ * ta/fe ntqut veneris, aut martis aflro percitum 7nodo in peccan--
** tiuitx humorum redundanfiam., pofius qua,vi pravum aliquent
'^ habitum, dditlum commode riiia profit, Neque tamen me hie

*' coufceierali

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 253

" confcderati cujujvis patronumjijlo ; fed in id folummodo con-
** Undo, ut mitiori fententia de lis Jlatuanius^ qui corporea,
** brutaliy S tantum ncn nece/faria propenfions. in peccata pro-
** labuntur*" Well, here is a handfome excufe for vice. We -
muft be as far from condemning him, who, prompted by pafiaon.
Hays and murders, or hurried on by \\i{i, commits rapes and
adulteries ; as of cenfuring him who is fick of a lethargy, for
his lazinefs and indifpofition to a6t ; or one that is hydropic,
for his immoderate thirfl. This divinity will highly pleafe
profane men. The falvo he fubjoins is very frivolous, and de-
ferves rather contempt than an anfwer. But to leave this, it
is plain there are fuch inclinations, and that if they are not
rooted out we are undone. What though men might have
hopes, if thev but erred once, that they might cafily obtain re-
miflion ; yet furc it muft confound them, when they lliil fin on,
and that out of inclination. Unlefs therefore natural religion
is able to cure this difeale, and eradicate tbofe inclinations, it
ferves to no valuable purpofc, at leafl it is infufficient as to the
great ends of religion, our own happinefs or acceptance with
God. And that really it cannot do {o, will be clear by th?
following confiderations.

I. If this corruption is congenial to our natures, as the above-
mentioned arguments go near to demonftrate, and the Chiiftian
religion fully proves, it is evident, that there mufl be feme
change wrought upon our natures. Now this is more than na-
tural religion can pretend to, which knows nothing of regene-
ration, and the fan6lifying work of the fpirit of grace. I know
Plato and fome others have talked of infpiration, and fome aids
of God: but this was all but chat, amufement, and a few tink-
ling words, which might pleafe the ears ; but what evidence
could they give, that any fuch thing was attained, or attaina-
ble ' T^U t.

2. J hough

* " Therefore I think that thofe are not fo eafily to be ccndem-

*' ned who fm from any peculiarity of bodily conftitution. As, there-

** fore, one could nor juftly blame a lethargic perfon for being lazy,

" or a dropfical perfon for being defirous of drink ; fo, perhaps, we

" ought not to blame any one that is prompted to fin by the fting of

" luft or anger, provided that his fm may be conveniently charged

" to the redundancy of peccant humours, rather than to any perverfc

** habit. And here I do not fet inyfelf up as the advocate of every

" wicked man, but only contend for this, that we (hould judge more

" mildly of thofe who fall into fins, from a corporeal, brutal, and

" airaoft neceffary incHnation."

r,^ AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xi.

2, Though ihls were given up ; yet of whatever nature
this corruption and iinpotency is, call it natural or moral,
it is certain, that it is ftrong ; natural religion cannot give
i"ufricient fecuritv tliat it is pra6ticable to eradicate it. We
JjQO'r that fome ftreams of this corruption may be dammed in,
fomc of the lop branches lopped off, and fonie of the fruits of it
mav be pl-jckcd. Thisj in fo far as it is done, is good for
mankind, and ufefid in focicty. Some of the philofophers have
gone a great way in it, and there'oy have fliamed moll who are
called Chriilans. But what is all this to the eradicating of
corrupTicn, purifying the minds of men, and univerfal confor-
mity in heart to the rule of duty? The attainments of philo-
fophers need not here be talked of: their virtues were but
fhows, and the {hadows of them. Search to the bottom, and you
will find, th^4t what they called fcjf-denial, was only a piece
of delicate intcreft in order to reach feif-ends: it was but a
parting with one thin^: pleafant to ourfelves, to gain a greater,
\vhich 13 felfidmefs to the height. As for that feif-denial,
which Chriflianity teaches, it was not heard of, or known in the
leafl. Liberality was but a mere trade of pride, which values
no gifts, provided it have the glory of being liberal; modefly
was the art of concealing our vanity; civility, but an afFe«5\ed
preference of other men before ourfelves, to conceal how much
we value ourfelves above all the world ; badifulnefs, but an af-
fected filence in thofe things, which lufts make men think of
with pleafure; benevolence or the defne of obliging other men,
but a fecret dellre ©rferving ourfelves, by getting them to befriend
us at other times ; gratitude, but an impatience to acquit ourfelves
of an obligation, with a Ihamefacedncfs for leaving been too
long beholden to otliers, for feme favour received. So that
sM thefe pretended virtues, in j^cneral, have only been fo ma-
ny gaurds made ufe of bv felf-love, to prevent our darling and
lecret vices froir* -appearing outwardly. All thefe are no evi-
c.ence«:» v/hnt rnay be done towards the removal of corrupt in-
vjanations. Nor indeed can nature's light fatisfy us tliat it is
praclicable. Can it (Ikw us the man that has done it? This were
iomewhat to the purpofe, could he be named. But this cannot be,
\Vili it tell us t!5at we have a power to do it ? But this is ibmcwhat
that wc fee and find by experience, the Oronged and mofl con*
vincing of all arguments, not to be true. We find vi'e may
rellrain or forbear fome outu^ard a^lions, but we have no expe«
rien:e of a power to lay afide or diveft ourfelves of inclinations

io

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 253

fo deeply rooted. Befides, they, who talk of this power^
whereof others have no experience, are liabie to be quenioned
upon feveral things which ihey canriot fairly or fatiGfyingiy
anfweri Why do net they more than others who find it
not, but complain of the want of this power, fhevv that thofe
inclinations are eradicated which they ov/n (hould be laid a-
fide, which they affert they have a power to lay afide, and
which they fay they have been long trying to overcome ? The
world will be forward to judge, at leaR, the thinking part of
mankind will be fo, that they are rather mified by fome fond
fpeculalions to judge they have a power that they really want,
than that this practical proof fhould fail, which feems fcarce
capable of an anfv/er.

Now will men be effe6lually engaged in a work fo difficult,
which they are never like to bring toanilTue? Will they
not rather choofe to yield to the conqueror than engage in a
war that muft laft r/hile they laft, and that without profpc£t of
conqueft and being mafters in the end? Yea, have they not done
fo? Who v/ill be induced to fuch an undertaking without
encouragement?

3. If this is practicable, vet it mud be owned extremely dif-
ficult, and what men will not eafily be engaged in. Inclinations?
are deeply rooted, ftrengthened by cuftcm, and in mod height-
ened by tcmpt:^iions, whereof the world is full. Now if
natural religion is fuppofed able to perfuade to fuch an under-
taking, it muft be well furniflied with ftrcng motives and in-
ducements. Whence (hall thofe be fetched ? Fronr: the rewards
of virtue, and the punilhnient of vice on the other fide time?
We heard how (hort the accounts of nature's light of the.fe are.
The impreffions of thefe were always more deeply rooted in
the vulgar, than the philofophers; yet they had no fuch effect.
It is plain, outward encouragements do not attend the practice
of virtue. There remains only then the beauty of virtue itfelf.
Of this the philofophers have talked wonderful things. But
the mifchief of it is, it was but talk. When they miiTed other
things, they could, even with iheirdying breath, as Brutus, one of
the adcpti*, is faid to have done, call virtue but an empty name.
They lived otherv/ife than they talked, the beft of them not
excepted. It is excellently faid by the ingenious Claudian,

Ip/2

* « Ferfea.'*

^5^ AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, xr

Ipfa quidem t-irtus pretium Jihi folaqne lat€
Fortiin^e fecura nitei, nee fafcikus ullis
Erigiturt plaufwve petit dare/cere <vulpi.
Nil opis externi cupicnii -nil indigna laudis,
Di-uitiis animofa Juisy immotanue cundis
CaJibuSi ex alta mortalia dejpicit arce *.

This is indeed very prettily faid ; but this Is all. Mcrl may
pleafe thcmfelves with refined fpeculations of the excellency of
virtue : but it is not this alone that can fway corrupt man. It is
not the queftion, what virtue really is? but what men think of
it, and can be made to fee in it? And it is certain, all the
philofophers could never perfuade the world of it ; and no
wonder, for they could not perfuade themfelves. Man-
kind have had other thoughts, and it mull be other views than
nature can give, that will beat them out of this. Another poet
pliinly opens the cafe,

T^urpe quidem dijiu (fed Ji modo 'vera fatemur)

Vulgm amicitias utilitate prohai :

Ciira quid expcdiat prior ejiy quam quid Jtt honejium^

Et cum fortuna Jiatque caditque fides.

Nee facile in'veuies multis in millibus ununiy

Fir tut em pretium qui put at effe Jui,

Ipfe decor rediy fadi ft prcemia definty

Ng?i ?nc^vet, ^ gratis penitet effe probum \,

Here is the true ftate of the cafe. But to come clofely up to
the point ; this beauty of virtue is not difcernible till we have
made fome progrefs in it. While corrupt inclinations are in
their vigour in the heart, fuch a beauty is not eafily feen.

2. It

* De Confuhtu Mallii Theodoriab Initio.—" Virtue indeed is its
" own reward, and it alone ihines far and wide, regardlefs of for-
" tune^ nor is it elevated by any power, or dcfires to become fa-
** mous by the applaufe of the croud, having no defire of outward
** help, nor any need of praife. Bold in its own. riches, and immove-
** able by all accidents, it looks down on mortal things from a high
** eminence.*'

+ Ovid, de Panto, Lib- 2. Eleg. 3. — " It is indeed fcandalous to
«< relate, but if we will only confcfs the truth, the multitude approves of
»« friendfhip only for interefl; the cafe of what is profitable is prior to
*< the cafe of what is honourable, and tlieir fidelity ftands and falls with
** fortune ; nor wiil you eaiily find one among many ihoufands, who
" thinks that virtue is its own reward. "Ihe beauty of virtue by itfelf
♦« does not move them, if rewards are wanting? and they grudge
»< to be honeft for nothing."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODBHN DEISTS. 257

2. It is a beauty too line to be perceived by vulgar eyes, 01'
indeed by any, rvitbcut deeper and nicer ccnfideraiion, than
itigI^ of men can go to (he charge of. 3. Alone it is not luih-
clent to fuppcrt and carry on in fo hazardous an undertaking.
4. This advantage is not to be felt till the virtue be obtained.
It is a queftion whether it will be attained. So that it is plain,
natural rehVion wants motives to engage elfe«Siuaily to this.

4. It is ftili further confiderable to this purpcle, that ihefe
vitlo'js inclinations arc ftrong, if not ftrongeft, in thoie v/ho
have neither capacity to dive into fhofe few refined confidera^
tions, which enforce the praiiice of virtue, and the fubduing
of corruption, nor indeed to undcrfiand them v/hen propofcd,
nor have they time or Iclfure to attend to the diicourfes of tl.'C
philofophers when they are taught, or money to purchafe them.
And natural religion provides no teachers, at leaf) if we take it
according to the accounts that we get from the deifls, who bear
fuch a terrible grudge to ?l Jlanding ?nini/lry, and have fo oft
in their mouths that refie6tion of Dryden, *' Prief^sofsll re-
ligions are the famiC." Now what a fad cafe are poor men in,
who are folicited by outward temptatiof?s and pufhed on by
Orong inclinations, and have fo fmall afiinance given them by
natural religion.

5. As motives are wanting, fo tlie work is not eaPdy carried
on, the 'vvay of management is difficult, and th«^ dive6lions giv-
en us bv the philofophers or others, are exceedingly unfatisfac-
tory. Some of thern are impofTible, fuch as the entire laying
afide of our affections ; others of them ridiculous, fuch as ihat
direction above-mention.ed out of Plato, for the purihca?ion oi
our fouls by mulic and mathematics, &c. Others, and in.:'ced
mod of them, only tell us what we are to do, bid us do the
thing, but tell us not hew to fet about it ; Tome of them only
tell us how to conceal inward corruption, or divert it. /^nd,
perhaps, I ilicuid net f:iy amifs, if 1 fnouid fay, that what the
beu moral philofophers either aimed at or attained, was oniy
to dam in corruption on one fide, to let it run ouv at anctbrr;
or to make that run in a fecret channel, v.'hich lun open »■""-
fore. It were long to examine their feveral directions. 1 l^e
learned Herbert gives us a fummary of them, which I fltal! here
prefent the reader v.'i'^b. i. We jliould fupprefs all our viticv.s
afj'tdions* This is but to advife the thing, without telli?)g us
how it is to be done. 2. That zvt expiate our jins by dtep re-
pentancef and by the iiiftituted facripces or rites* This is oniy

1 i a re-

2:3 AN INd^IRr INTO THE chap. xi.

a rtfnctiy for guilt, and an ill one too, as has been cleared a-
br.»'e. 3. That we avcid the Jociety of evil men* But then we,
mull go out of the ivorld^ or at leaft out of the heathen world.
.\' Th.U ue ufe the company of good men. But where (hall we
fjnd tlieir amongft thofe, who have no rriore but natural reli-
gion ? 5. That ice inquire carefully what is to be done^ and
what is rot to be dene; but the quefhon is, when we know it,
How lliall we get the one avoided and the other followed, con-
fidcring we have a ftrong averficn to good, and inclination to
e-it? 6. 'Ihat our Jins, zvhich arife from human frailty t
fiiould he coirsBed or laid o fide. But ftili the quellion occurs,
How is this to be done? 7. That zee fJiould ufe fupplications
ahd prayers to the gods ^ as the priefls prefcribe. But for M'hat,
and upon what grounds? And what will this help the matter?
6 To conclude this argument, the univerfai experience oi
rrtankind bears teftimcny to the weaknefs of natural religion.
Nothing in this matter was ever done, or done to purpofe,'
i":v e where revelation prevailed. Should we narrowly lean
the livcL-, not of the vulgar, but of the Heathen philofophers,
^s Plato, Arifiotle, Seneca, Plutarch, Cato and Brutus, we
might eafily pull ofthenriafk, and dilccver how little it was
t'jar lliey attained in this matter, or rather nothing' st all. Yea
even a Sccrates him.fclf would not be able to (land before an im-
pa:;i.il inquirer. 1 believe he could not give a good account
of his amours, and thofe practical inflru6iions, which he is
f;\id TO have given his fchclar Alcibiades. He repreiTed well
the vanity and pride of other piiilofophers: but pcihaps, nay I
Yi^.<in\ rot fay perh?,ps, with greater pride; yea even his death,
th.-; iRcit applauded part of his whole conduti, might be un-
inalk^^d, and dt-privcd cf the unjufl eulogies, which fome have
made on it, who, it may be, never read the accounts we have
of it, or ferioufly ccnl'ideied his carriage on that occafion. It
is triic, he was unjuOly put to death, and behaved very refo-
iutelv, but whether he fell not a facrifice to his own pride, as
much as to the malice cf his enemies, may be qucilioned. This
I fav not to detract from thofe great men, whom I admire,
conlidering their Tiatc ; but to inew, that they went not fo high
as fcnic would have us believe.

In tine, till revealed religion appeared, nothing was {ctn
in the world, of true piety or religion, of mortihcation of fm,
or holinefs of life. The natural notices could never make
one pious, or indeed moral. Whereas Chriilianity, upon its firii

4

PRINCIPLES OF THE iMODERN DEIST:

259

appearance, in a moment, as it v/ere, made millions (o. And
they who have rejefled it, an:T fet up for Fleatheni;':! again,
under the new, but injurious name of Deifm, are no friends to
holinefs of life, piety towards God, fobriety in their own wav,
nor righteoufneis among m^n. How mighty faints da Biourit,
Hobbs, Spinoza, Uriel, Accoila and others make?

I defigned to have pioceeded further, to demonHratc the
infufficiency of naturai religion to anfwer the ends of religion,
by the connderation of its infufficiency to fnpport under the
troubles of life^ or amongft the terrors of death; but upon fe-
cond thoughts I judged, after what has been faid, it was not
needful. Befides, if any look but at it, they may eafiiy fee
it L'.tterly infufficient to this purpofe, as it is indeed t.o the
ether great ends of religion.

If the well-founded profpe6l of future rewards, an^l a cle^r
knowledge of the nature and excellency oi thivgs eternal and
not feen, the prefent intimations of divine love, in crofs difpen-
fations, the fupports of divine powerful grace under them, the
iifefulnefs of thofe calamities, by virtue of divine ordination
Py and concurrent influence of the divine Spirit, verified in the:
^ experience of the fufFerers, are laid afide, as natural religion
does, which knows nothing of thefe, all that men can fay to
comfort under afflidion, or arm againfi; the horrors of doath, 19
but an unprofitable amufement, or at leaft, like rattles and
other toys we give to children, that do not in the le.^li cafe
them of the pain they are under; but do for a little, divert
the mind, while they are looked at ; but as foon as thp firfi
impreiTion is over, which thefe new toys make on the mind,
the fenfe of pain recurs again, with that redoubled force,
which it always has, when it immediately fuccee<i^ either tai"<?
or want of fenfe. And if it is really violent, thefe things
will not avail, no not to divert trouble for a little. It is but a
forry comfort to tell me, that others are troubled as well as
I, or warfc ; that death, which I fear, will cn^ it ; thitt I
mufl bear it ; that I have other enjoyments, which yet prefent
pain will not allow me to rclilh. Yet fuch are thq bjft cor]-
folations that natural rdinon affords.

CHAP.

26o AN IXQ^UIRY INTO THE chax-. xii.

C H A P. XII.

IVherrAn the Proof of the Infujjlciency of ^ Katura! Religion is
^concluded from a general Viezu of the Exptritnce of the
World.

AS a conclunon to, and illuRration of what has hitherto been
dircourfed, for dcmonftrating the infufficiencyoi natural
religon, I ffiall here olfer 2i fix-fold view of the experience of the
world in general, wiihodt dei'cending to particular iniiances,
u'hich have in part been touched at, and ottered before^ and
are every where to be inet with.

I. Let us view man as a creature made for this end, to gfor?/y
Cod and enjoy /: J. ■??., abfi ranting frcjn the confideration of bis cor-
ruption, winch ihe deiPis fonnetimes dcvry, and fometinies wit!i^
diihcuity, do but in part admit. And Jet us confidcr him as left to
purfue this noble cn6, in the Life of his rational faculties, unc'cr
the conduci of the mere light of nature : If we confider hi.n thu:^>
and inqu're into the experience of the world, how far he has
rciched this end, we thall hnd fuch an account, as will mpch
co-inrm the truth we have hitherto aiTerted, and weaken the credit
of the dehls' imaginary fufficiency of nature's light to cohdud
an to the end for which he was made,

I'i we look to the generality of m.ankind, \vq rnall find them, in
a porlure much like that wherein the prophet faw the princes in
the vifion, with their backs to the chief end, never once think-
ing for what they were made, parfuing other things ; every one
as'iud led him, foliowing his own humour, walking in a diredl
and open contradiction to that law, which was originally dehgn-
ed fur the guide cf our life, and the dire6iory to bliis, that hap-
pinefs, which all would have, though they know Lot where to
find it.

If we look at the philofjphcrs, we may fee xhcxn fitting up
late, rifing earlv, ealing thebre-zdofcarefulnefis, wearying ihem-
felves in the fearch of happinefs., running into hundreds of ditFe-
rent notions about it, and yet not one of them hitting, or at leaft
imderRanding the true one ; and as little agreed about the way
to it. We may hear them talk of virtue, but never levelling it at
its proper end, the glory of God, We may hear them urging its
practice, but not upon the proper grounds. Rarely any regard to
the authority of God, the only formal ground of obedience. In-

fiead

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 261

Oead of plain rules ufeful to mankind, they obtrude cryptic and
dark ientences, rather defigned to make others admire them, than
to be ufeful to any. They every where tack their own fancies
to the divine law, a weight iuiiicient to link it as to its truth, in
the apprehenfions of men, oratleaft, as to its ufefulnefs. They
offer a rule defeclivc in m.ofl thinj^s of m.oment, corrupt in many,
ruining in not a few inRances, deltitute of any other authority
than their own fay, or ipjc dixit ^ unintelligible to the generality,
and naked as to inducements to obey it.

2. Let us confider man as made for this end, but barred from its
attainment, by the interpofition of thofe great hindcrances and
rubs which now are certainly in its way ; I mean darknefs,
guilt and corruption. Thefe arc ftones in the way. How has
nature's light acquitted itfelf as to the rolling them away ? Truly
they have been like Syfiphus's ftone, as faft as they have rolled
them up, 23 fait they have recoiled and fallen back on them.

As to that darknefs that has overfpread the minds of men, if
we look at the gcneralty, we find them like blind men, con-
tent to jog on in the dark, mired every where, fiumbiing
frequently, and falling fometimes dangeroufly; yet fatisficd
wth their cafe, not looking after light: not fo much becaufe they
want it not, as becaufe they have no notion of it, or its ufeful-
nefs ; like blind men that never {aw the fun, and therefore
fufFer the lofs of it with lefs regret, than they who once faw,
but now have loft their eyes. They follow as they arc led ; are
ready to take hold of any hand, though of one as blind ^s
themfelves, and are never fenfible of the miftake, till funk
where they cannot get out again. The philofophers indeed
feem a little more fentlbie of their czi'c, and fancying truth to
be hid in Dem.ocritus's well, dive for it, but lofe their breath
before they come at it, and fall into dangerous eddies or whirl-
pools, where they lofe themfelves inilead of finding truth ; or
trying to fetch it up, but with a line too fnort, they fetch up
feme we.^<is that are nourifhed by their nearnefs to the waters,
and pleafe tl.emfelves with thofe. After all their painful en-
deavours we firvj them groping in the dark, as to all ufeful:
and neceflary knav.'ledge of God, or the way of worfiiipping
him; of ourfelves, our happlnefs, our fins, the way of obtain-
ing pardon, our duty or our corruption.

As to guilt, if we lo{>k at the cafe of mankind, and their
endeavours for the removal of ir^ we find the mofi part drov, n-
^d in endlefs defpair or fatal fecurity ; like m.en at their wit's

end,

'jiSi AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xii.

env^, trying all v/ays that fear, fuperflition, or racked imaglna^
tion can fLipnlyj and Oili unfatisfied with their own inventions,
they are ready to try ail ways that lelf-defigning men, or even
Ihe d«?vil can fuggeil to them, fparing no cod, no travel, no
pain. They Hand not to give the fruit of their body for the
Jin of their JouL The philofophers either think, through their
pride, they have no fin, becaufe they are not quire {o bad as
the vulgar ; or, if they ftill retain fome fenfe of fin, they are
driven into the ntmofi; perplexity, being convinced of the
wickednefsof the meafures taken by the vulgar, or at lead of
their ufelelVnefs and impertinency, and yet unable to find out
better ; they try to divert their thoughts from a fore they know
Ro plainer for.

As to corruption, we find all confefling it, crying out of
thedifeafe; and indeed it is rather becaufe it cannot be hid,
the fore runs, than becaufe it is painful to many. The gene-
rality defpair of ftemming the tide, and finding it eaficft to fwim
with the ftreara, are willingly carried headlong. The body
of philofophers are indeed like weak w^ter-men on a Orong
flream, they look one way but are carried another. Though
they pretend they aim at the ruining of vice, yet really they
do it no hurt, fave that they fpeak againfl it. A izw of the
bed of them being aPr.amed to be found amongfl the red, fwim-
ming, or rather carried down the dream on the lurface, that is,
in open vice, have dived to the bottom; b-ut really made as
much way under water as the others above.

3. Let us view mankind under the goodncfs and forbearance
of God, thefe helps which fome think fufficient, Thefe words
arc ufed, or rather abufed, as a blind in a matter of very great
importance ; and men who ufe them will fcarce tell, if they
can, even in the fubjc6l of the prefent difcourfe, in what {^^{q
tbey ufe them. But let it be as it will, feme pretend the
works of providence, particularly God's goodncfs aird for-
bearance fufi-icient. Well, let us lee the expericjice of the
world in this.

If we view mankind under this confideraticn, wc may fee
them fo far from being led to repentance, that mod part never
once took notice of this condu6l of God. Other?, and they
not a few, have abufed it to the word purpofes. Becaufe judg-
7iient agoinfi an evil worky has not boen fpeedvy executed, there-
fore their hearts were wholly fet in them to do eviL The more
inquifitive have raifed a clvrge agaiud God as encouraging

wickcdnels.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 26

Vvickednefs. And as for the favours ihey enjoyed themrelvcs,
they looked on them, not as calls to repentance, but as re-
wards for their pretended virtues, and fcanty ones too, below
the worth of thern. Not a fev/ of them have gone near to ar-
raign God of injuftice for lefier afflictions they uere vifued
vi^ith ; while others have been entangled and toiled to and
fro by crofs appearances. So that none have by this goodnefs
of Goilf been led to repentance.

4, Let us view man living in the place where revelation ob-
tains, or where the Chriftian religion is profefled and taught, but
renouncing and rejedting it, and in profeflion owning only na-
tural religion : Such are the deifts atiiong us. if we confrer
their words, they talk indeed that natural religion is fuflicient ;
and to make it indeed appear fo, fome of them have adorned \i
with jewels borrowed from the temple of God, afcribing to na-
ture's lightdifcoveries in religion,which originally were owing to
revelation, and were never dreamed of v. here it did not obtain ;
though being once difcovered, they have gained the confent of
fober reafon. But now we are net ccnfidering the fpcech, but
the power of thefe men ; not v/hat they fay of the fufficiency of
natural religion, but what real experience they have of it, and
what evidence they give of this in their pradiice.

if we thus conuder them, we find, that although when thev
have a mind to impofe their notion of the fufnciency of natural
religion upon others, they pretend, that it is clear, as to a great
many points or principles, that are coniciledlv of the greateO:
mouieni in religion ; yet when they begin to fpeak more plainly
and freely their own inward fentimiCnls, they (hew that thfv
are not iixed, no not about the very principles themfelves, cvta
thefe of them which are of the greateft confequence. Mr. Gil-
don, publilher of the Oracles of Reafon, is not far from alTerting;
two anti-^'Tods, the one gocdi the other evil ; and fo falls in
with the Perfians *. Blouat favours the opinion of Ocellus Lu-
canus, about the zoorld's eternity, and confequently denies, or
at leaR hefitates about creation-^. The immateriaiity of the foul
teems to be flatly reje6ied by them all. Nor do they \t^m
very firm as to its immortality. In fhort, after they have
been at fo much pains to trim v.y) natural religion, and
make it look fufficient-like, they yet exprefs a hcfitation about
lis fufficiency to eternal Ife^. We have heard Herbert to this

purpoie

* Oracles of Reafon, pag. 194, 213,-22:^. f Ibid, 154, iq/.

t ibid, 1 17, 127.

264 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xii.

purpofe already. Blount, in a letter to Dr. S^'denliam, pre-
fixed to the Deifies Rcafons, fays plainly, that it is not iafe to
truft deifm alone, without Chriiiiariity joined to it. And the
Deift's hope is fummed up in this, in the 4th chap, of (he Sum-
mary oj tlu Deijl's Ilea fens. That ** there is more probability
of his ialvation, than of the creduious and ili-living Papill*;" —
and that is juil none at all.

Nor does their pratlice give one jot of a better proof of the
fufficiency of that religion which they profefs : yea, it r.ffbrds
convincing evidence of its weaknefs, ufeleiTnefs, and utter in-
fufficiency. Their lives fhew that they arc not in earneR about
any thing in religion. Tliey arc Latitudinarians in pra(Slice.
Their words, their actions, have no favour of a regard to a
Deity ; but they go on in all manner of impieties in pra*.5^ice,
and perhaps in the end, put a period to a wretched life by their
own hands, as Blount, Uriel, Acci'la and others have done, and
the furvivers juftifythe dced,upontriilingand child ifii reafonings;
as not knowing but they may one day be put to ufe the fairiC
fnift. 1 am not in the leafi deterred from averting this, by the
commendations that the pubiifiierof the Grades of Reajon gives
to Mr. Blount, as a perfon remarkable for virtue *. If a pro-
fane, jocular, and unbecoming treatment of the gravcfl and
moft iirportant truths that belong, even by his own acknow-
ledgment, to. natural religion ,* yea, and are the principal
props of it ; and if grofs and palpable difmgenuiiy be inHances
of that virtue that he afcribes to him, and evidences of thofe
ju/l and adequate notions of the Daty, in which he fays Mr,
illount was bred up, I could gives inflances enougii from the
book itfelf of fuch virtues : But I love net to rake in the ajhes of
the dead* Again, others of the Deifts, having wearied then>-
feives in chace of a phantom to no purpofe, and having neitiicr
the grace nor ingenuity to return to the religion tirjy aban-
doned, either land in downright atheifm in principle and prac-
tice, or they throw themfelves into the arms of the pretended
infallible guide ; and thereny orjve evidence how well-founded
the Jefuitical maxim is, Make a man once an atliajl, he wiU
foon turn Papift.

5. Let us view men living under the ffofpej, embracing it
in profeflion, but unacquainted with that Spirit that gives life
and pozoer to its dodhines, precepts, pi-omifcs, threats and or-
dinances.

* Oracles of PvCafon, at the beginning, accouiit of Blount's life.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 25.5

dinances. They, befides that they are pcffcired of all the ad-
vantages of nature's light, have moreover the luperadded ad-
vantages of revelation, and its inftitutions. They have minif-
teis and parents inftru6ling them, and difcipline to reftrain
them, they are trained up in the faith of future rewards, and
inftru£ted in the nature and excellency of them, for their en-
couragement ; they have punilhments propofed to them to deter
them from fm, which they profsfs to believe; yet if we con-
fider the pratlice cf the generality of fuch perfons, if gives
a fufficient evidence, tlmt all this is not enough. Who but a
man blind or foolilh can then dote fo far, as to pretend nature's
light alone fufficient, when it is not fo, even when helped by
fo many acceiTory improvements ?

If we conftder the experience of them who have recei^'ed tlie
gofpel in truth, and felt its power, we find they have indeed
reached the ends of religion in part, and have a fair profpect
as to farther iuccefs. Well, what is their fenfe of the fuffici-
ency of nature's light ? Why, if you obferve them in their pub-
lic devotions, you Ihall hear heavy out-cries of their own daik-
nefs, weaknefs and wickednefs ; you may hear ferlous prayers
for divine light, and life to quicken th?m, flrengthen and in-
cline them to follow duty, and fupport tliem in it, againft the
pov/er of temptations, whi^h they own themfeUes unable to
marier, without the pov/erful aids of divine grace. If you fal-
low them into their retirements, where the matter is rnanaged
betwixt God and them alone, where they are under none of
thefe temptations, to maintain the credit of any received no-
tions, and therefore mu(\ be prefumed to fpeak out the practical
fenfe of the ftate of their cafe, without any difguife ; there
you fliall find nothing but deep confeffions of guilt, darknefs,
and inability, with earnefi: cries, prayers, and tears, for {u:^-
plies of grace : and what they attain in matte?s of religion,
you (liall find them freely owning, that it* was not tLy, but
the grace of God in thsm that brought them to this. And ih^
more that any is concerned about religion, or know and has
attained in it, fiill you will find him the more feniible of ibis
ftate of things.

This is but a hint of what might have been faid : but I have
rather chofen to ofl^er a general Icheme of the argument ficm
experience, which every one, from his own private reading and
obfervation, may illuftrate with obfervations and particular in-
flances, than to infii't upon it at large, which would have re-
quired a volume.

K k CHAP

266 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ci«\p. xm.

CHAP. XIII.

IVherdn tee mah a iranfdion to the Dcifts' Pleas for their Opt-
raoHf and take particular Notice oj the Articles to zuhichthey
reduce their Catholic Religicjiy give fomt Account of Baron
Herbert, the firft Inventer oJ this Catholic Religion Jus Books,
and particularly of that which is infcrihed De Religionc
Gentilium, as to the Kiatter and Scope of it, and the Impor-
tance of what is therein attempted to the Deijls' Cavfe,

WE have norv propofed and confirmed our own opinion ; our
ntxt bufincfs is to inquire more particulariy into that
of the Deills, and confider what they otter for it.

The firll: fet of Deills, fo far as I can learn, did fatlsfy them-
felves with the reje^iion of ail fupernatural revelation, and a
general pretence, that natural reiigicn was fufficient, without
telling the world of what articles it did confift, what belonged
thereto, or how far it went. The learned lord Herbert was
the firft who did cultivate this notion, and dreiTed Deifm, and
brought it to fomethingcf a form. This honour he aflumes to
himfelf, glories in it, and we fee no ground to difputeihis with
him. 1 have met with nothing in any of the modern Deifts
t'nat makes towards this fubje»:t, which is not advanced by him,
;^nd probably borrowed from his writings. It will not there-
fore he impertinent to give the reader fome account of him.

Tiiis Edrnard lli-.rhert was a defcerdant from a younger bro-
ther of the family of Pembroke. He was brother to the fa-
mous George Herbert the divine poet. His education was at
Oxford, where he was for fome time a fellow Commoner in
IJniveifitv-Coliege there. After he left the univerfity, he im-
proved himf. !f by travels into foreign nations, and obtained the
reputation of a icholar, a t^atefman and foldier. He was made
Knight of the Bath at the coronation of king James I. in Eng-
land, wlio afterwards fent hivn as ambalTador to Lewis Xlli. on
behalf of the French Prcteftants : and upon his return he was
created Baron of Caflle-Ifand, in Ireland ; and by king Char-
les 1. anno i6op, he was created a baron of England, by the
tiile of Lord Herbert of Cher bury ^ and died in 1648 *.

This

* See Geo^raph. Diflion. articles Herbert and Dcifm, See alfo the
Life of Mr, George Herbert,

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 267

This learned perfon having once unhappily apoi^atifed from
the reJigion wherein he was bred, into dajm, though, as other
Deiftsiikewile do, he did ftili feem to own the Church of Eng-
land ; yet he fct himfclf for the maintenance of deifm in his
writings. And to this purpofe he publiihcd fome time after
the year 1640, (for I have not the firft edition of it) his book
de Veritate, and (hortly after another, de Caujis Errorzun*
Thefe two books are for the moft part phiiofophical, and writ-
ten with fome Angularity of notion. What is truth in them is
rather delivered in a nezu ivayf than new ; and by the ufe of vul^-
gar words in new and uncommon acceptations, and hisobfcure
way of management of his notions, is fcarcely intelligible to
any but metaphylical readers, nortofuch, without greater ap-
plication, than perhaps the matter is worth. I fliould not think
myfelf concerned in either of thefe two books, their fubje6\ be-
inij phiiofophical, were it not that it is his avowed defign in
them, to lay a foundation for his peculiar notions in religion.

There are two things at which Herbert, in thele and his o-
ther writings, plainly aims at — to overthrew revelation^ and to
cjiahlijh natural religion in its room. It is not my defign or
province at prefent, to defend revelation againft the efforts of
tliis or any other author, though I think it were a bufmefs of
no great dlilicuity to remove what Herbert has faid againft it ;
yet fince 1 hue mentioned his attempt upon it, i cannot pafs
it without fome ftiort, but juft remarks upon his unfair, if not
difingenuous v/ay of treating revelation.

1. On many occafions, with what candor 2LTiQ ingenuity him-
felf knew, he profeireth a great refpe6\ to revelation, and par-
ticularly to the fcriptures, and pretends he dehgns nothing in
prejudice of the ejlablifhed religion : but any one that perufes
the books will foon fee, that this is only like Joab's kifs^ a blind
to make his reader fecure, and fear no danger from the /word
that he has under his garment : For notwithUanding of this,
he every where infinuates prejudices againli all revelation, as
uncertain, unneceffaryy and of little or no vfe to any, fave thofc
to whom it was originally, or rather immediately given.

2. Upon all occaiions, and fometimes without any occafion
given him from his fubject:, he makes failles utvon truths of the
greateft importance in the Chriflian religion ; fuch as the doc-
trines of the corruption of our natare, fatisJacUon of Chrijl, and
the decrees of God, &c. And having reprefented them difin-
genuoufly, or clfe Ignorantly, (which I !efs fufped in a man of

his

26d, AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ghap. xiii.

hii learning) not in that way they are propofed in fcripture, or
taught by thoic who maintain them, but under the difguile of
grofs mifreprefentations, miftaken notions, and ftrained con*
fequences : and having thus put them in bead's fkins, as the
primifive perfecutors did the Chriftians, he lets his dogs upon
them to worry them ; and this without any regard had unto the
foundation they have in the fcriptures, or the evidence of the
proofs that may be advanced for the fcriptures in general, or
thefe doi^rines in particular, and without all confideration of
the inconfidency of this way of treating truths plainly taught,
and inculcated as of the greateft importance in the fcriptures,
with that refpe6l, which upon other occafions he pretends to
that divine book.

3. He ftates wrong notionG of the grounds v^hereupon reve-
lation is received, and overthrows thofe imaginary ones he has
fet up, as the reafons of our belief of the fcriptures, and then
triumphs in hig fuccefs. How eafy is it to fet up a ?Jian qfjliaw
and beat him down with the finger !

4. The Pedis generally, and Herbert in particular, do grant,
that' the Chrillicin revelalion has manifeflly the advantage of all
oilier pretenders to revelation, as in refpe6t of the intrinfic excel-
lency of the matter, fo likewile in refpe6t of the reafons that
may be pleaded, for its truth.* And fo certain and evident is
this, that one of their number owns, that Chriftianity has ** the

' faireft pretenfions of any religion now in the world," and
exhorts to/' make a diligent inquiry into it;" arguing, "that
** if the pretences of Chriftianity be well grounded, it cannot
** be a frivolous and indifferent matter ;" and he grants further,
that '* the truth of the matters of fact which confirm it, is hard-
" Iv poffible to be denied f." Now notwithftanding of this
m.anifeft and acknowledged ditlerence betwixt the fcriptures and
other pretenders to revelation, when Herbert fneaks of revela-
tion, he jumbles all pretenders together without diftin6iion, and
urges the faults of the moft ridiculous and obvioully fpurious
pretenders, againft revelation, in general, as if every particular
one, and efpecially Chriftianity, were chargeable with thefe
faults : Is this candid and fair dealing, to infinuate to the un-
wary reader tb.at thefe palpable evidences of impofture are
to be found in all revelations alike, while, even they tl.en)-
felves being judges, the icripturcs are not concerned in them ?

Yet
* Re)ieiol.aici, pag. 9, ic. t Letter to the Deifts, psg. 139.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 269

Yet this is the way that Cliridianity is treated by this learned
author; and his fteps have been clofely traced in this piece of
~ Icandalous difingenuity, (for I can give it no milder name), by
Blount and the other writers of the paity, as I could make ap-
pear by niany inilances, if need required.

5. Our author makes high pretences to accuracy in fearching
after truth, and treats all other authors with the greateft fcorn
and contempt imaginable, as Ibort in that point : yet he feldom
flates a quetUon fairly, but huddles all up in the dark, efpeclal-
ly, U'hen he fpeaks about revelation, and heaps together diffi-
culties about all the concernments of revealed religion, with-
out any regard to the diilindi heads to which they belong. This
13 a ready way to ibake the faith of his reader about all truths,
but eftablifh him in none.

Other reflections 1 forbear, though he has given fair occa-
fion for many : but this is not njy fubje<5l. This part of his
difcourfe has been animadveited on by a learned author, though
the book is not come to my hand,*

The other branch of our author's defign, viz. His attempt to
eflablilh the fujficiency of natural religion^ is that wherein I
am dire6ily concerned. This he only propofes in his book de
Veritatt at the clofe, with a fhort explication of his famed five
ArtideSt of which more anon. And in a frnall treatife entitled
Religio Laid, fub joined to his book de Caufu Errorum^ he fur-
ther explains them. The defign of this laft mentioned treatife
is to ihew, that the vulgar can never come to certainty about the
truth of any particular revelation, or the prefcrablcncfs of its
presences unto others, and that therefore of necefiity they mufl
fit down fatisfied with the religion he offers ihem, confiiling of
five articles, agreed to, if we believe him, by all religions.

The religion, confiftingof five articles, which we (liall exhi-
bit immediately, he attempts to prove fufficient by fome argu-
ments in that iaf^ mentioned treatife. But the principal proof,
on which our author lays the whole ftrefs of his caufe, is at large
exhibited in another treatife of our author, deReligione Genliliu?n,
publifhed at Amf^erdam, anno 1663, ^Y J' VoJJi.us, fen to
the great Crer, Joan. Vojfius, His pleadings in thefe and his
other writings we ibaii call to an account by and bye.

Herbert,

* Baxter's More Reafcns for the Ghriflian Religion, and no Reafo^i
againll it, in tiie Appendix.

270 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xm.

Herbert, In his treatife dt Religiont Gtntilium^ pretends.
Whatever iniftakes the Gentile world was under in rrjatters of
religion ; yet there was as much agreed to by all nations, as
ivas necellary to their eternal happinefs. Particularly, he tells
us, that they were agreed about five. ArticleSt of natural re
ligiotif which he thinks Z-Vt fujficient, viz. i. That is then 9ni
fupreme God^ 2, That he is to be worfliipped. 3. That virtue is
the principal part of his worfliip. 4. That we mufl repent of
our fins, 5. That there are rewards and punip2ments both in
rkii If e and that which is to come*

Charles Blount, who fet himfelf at the head of the Delfts fomc
i^^N years ago, in a fmall treatife entitled Rdigio Laid, printed
1603, which in effe6t is only a tranflation of Herbert's book of
the fame name, inverting a little the order, but without the ad-
dition of any one thought of moment; in this treatife, I fay, he
reckons up the articles of natural religion much after the fame
manner, i. That there is one only fupr erne God. 2. That he
chiefly is to be worfiipped* 3. That virtue^ goodnefs and piety,
accompanied with faith in, and love to God, are the bejl ways of
worjhipping him, 4. That wefJiould repent of our fins from
the bottom of our hearts, and turn to the right wuy, 5. That
there is a reward and punifhment after this life^^

Another, in a letter dire6ted to Mr. Blount, fubfcribed A. W.
has given us an account of them fomewhat different from both
the former, in itvtn articles, i. That there is one infinite, and
eternal God, creator of all things, 2. That he governs the world
by providence. 3. That it is our duty to worfiip and obey him as
our Creator and Governor, 4, That our worfiip con fifls in pray ^
er to him, and praife of him. 5. That our obedience confifs in
the rules of right reafon, the pratiice whereof is moral virtue.
6. That lue are to expetl rewards and puniflimeuts hereafter ac-
cording to our adions m this Ife; which includes the foul's im-
mortaljty, and is proved by our admitting providence. 7. Ihat,
when we err from the rules of our duty, we ought to repent and
trufl in God's mercy for paidon-X To the fame purpofe, with-
out any alteration of moment from what we have above quoted,
Herbert reckons up and repeats the fame articles in his other
treat if^s.

Thcfe

* DeRelig. Gentil. pag. 186, 210, &c» f Ibid, .19) 50.
J Oracles of Reafon, {i'^. 197,

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 271

Thefe other authors do but copy after Herbert. To him the
honour of this invention belongs, and he values himfelf not a
little upon it. Let us hear himfelf. ** Afque ita ffed non jint
** multiplici accurataque rdigionum turn diJftBione^ turn inf pec-
•^ tiom) quinque illos articulosfepius jam adduBos deprehendi,
** Quibus itiam inventis me Jdiciorem Archimede quovis txijli-
** viavi *." He acquaints us, that he confulted divines and
writers of all parties, but in vain, for to find the univerfal reli-
gion he fought after; it is not therefore likely, if any had mould-
ed this univerfal religion, or put it into a form meet for the De-
iOs' purpofe before him, that it could have efcaped his obferva-
tion and diligence.

Now we have had a fufficient view of the articles, to which
the Deifts reduce their religion. Let us next inquire after the
proof of this religion ; the burden whereof mufl lean upon Her-
bert. The Deifts fince his time have added nothing that has a
(hew of proof that I can yet fee. Well, after he has in his other
treatifes, as has been faid, propofed and explained his religion,
he at length comes to the proof of it in his treatife dt Rcligiont
Gentilium. Here the main ftrength of his caufe lies, and with
this we (hall mainly deal ; yet fo as not to overlook any thing
that has a (hew of proof elfewhere in his writings.

In this treatife dt Religione. Gtntilium^ he makes it his work
to illufirate and prove, *' That the above-mentioned five arti-
** cles v/ere univerfally believed by people of all religions."
This isthe propofition at which that whole book aims. In the
management of this fubje6t our author gives great proof of di-
ligence, vaft reading, and much philological learning. He
gives large accounts of the idolatry of the Heathens and their
pleas for it, or rather of the pleas, which our author thought
might be made for it ; m hich has given occafjon to feveral con-
je6fures, as to our author's defign in that book, and his other
writings.

I find a learned author, who has bellowed a few (hort ani-
madverfions on this book, inclined to think it not unlikely,
that Herbert's principal defign M'2S, if not to juftify, yet to ex-

cufe

* Dc Relig. Gent. pag. 218. — " And thus, though not without -<
** manifold and accurate difTe^ion and inrptdicn of re]igion, 1 hav<

a
'e
" found thofe five articles, that have already been ofren quorcfl, on
" finding which! thought myfelf more happy than any Archimedes.''

272 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. xiir.

rufe the idolatry of the church of Romef. And if one confi-
ders how many pleas Herbert makes for t'ne Gentiles' idolatry,
and that they are generally fach as may ferve for the Homaniiis'
purpofe ; and if it is fwrther confidered, that Herbert elfe where
feems, upon many occafions, to found the whole certainty of
revelation upon the authority of the church, and that alone, and
the va(\ power he gives to the church as to the appointment of
riies, yea, and all the ordmanc^.s of loorfkip ; if it is further
confidered how concerned fome pcrfons were for an accommo-
dation with the church of Rome at that time, when our author
wrote, and how far Herbert was concerned in that party, who
were flriving for this reconciliation ; if I fay, all thefe things
are laid together, this conjeciure will not appear deftitute of
probability. I might add to this, that Herbert makes ufe of
pleas not much unlike thofe which are ufecl by the church of
Rome to Hirike Proteftants out of their faith, that they may at
length fall in with the infallili>ie guide. In fine, I dare be bofd
to undertake the maintenance of this againft any oppofer, that
,y Herbert's method followed out, will inevitably make the vulgar
atheifts ; whether he defigned by this to make them Papii\s, I
know not, nor fhall I judge. How far this conje^^ure will
hold, I leave to others to judge, i ihall only add this one thing
more, that the feeming oppofition of Herbert's defign unto
PopiQi principle?, and his thrufls at the Romifh clergv, will not
be fullicient to clear him of all fufpicion in this matter, with
thofe who have ferioufiy perufed the books written by Papids in
difguife, on defign to (hake the faith of the vulgar I'ort of Pro-
taliants, in (bme of which, there is as great appearance at iirfl
view of a dehgned overthrow of Popery, and as hard thinj^s
faid ag-ainll the Romiih clergy. Good water-men can look one
wav and row another. What there was of this, will one day be
manifcih

The Delfts maintain, that '* their religion, confifiing of the
*' above-named five articles, is fufncient." It is the avowed de-
fign of Herbert in his book, to aiTert this and prove it ; and yet
he fpends it v/holly in proving this propofition, ** That fhefe
** five articles did univerfally obtain." Now it feems of im-
V portance to inquire, why Herbert flioual be at fo much pains to
prove this. How does univeri'a! reception of thefe articles efla-
bliilihisreii'Mon, and of what conlequcnce :s it to tlic De:(!.i' caufe?

For

f Abra'i. HciJanus de Oriijine Erroris, JLib. VI. (Zr\ XI. p.^or.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 273

For clearing this, it muft be obferved, that it is a common
religion that Herbert is inquiring after, which may be equally
ufeful to all mankind ; and nothing can agree to this, which is
not commonly received. ^ And Herbert has before laid down
this for a principle, that the only way to diflinguifh common
notices from thefc which are not fo, is U7nveifal reception*
This according to him is the only fure criterion. ** Rtligio ejl

*' notitia communu Vtdendum igitur eji^ qu^nam m re-

*' ligione ex confenj'u univerjali Jitnt agnita: univerja conftran-
** tur: Qua antem ab oinnibus tanquam vera in religione agnof-
** cuntur^ccmmunes notitidi hahcnddi Junt» Sed dices e/fe lab oris
** iwprobi: at alia ad veritates notitiarum communium non fu-
** perefl via; quas tamen ita jnagni faclmus, ut in illis Jolts fa-
" picntui: divine univerfalis arcana deprchendi pajjint,*"

But to fet this matter in a full light, I Ihall make appear,That
a failure in this attempt, to prove that thefe were univerfally a-
greed to, is inevitably ruinous to the Dcifts' caufe and plea for
a common religion ; though the proof of this point will be very
far from inferring that there is a common religion, as feall be
cleared afterwards. And this will give further light iato the
realbns of Herbert's undertaking.

To this purpofe then it is to be obferved, That the Dcifts
being agreed about the reje6tion of the Chriftian religion, and
that revelation whereon it is founded, they are for ever barred
from the acceptance of any other revelation as the meafure of
religion, that the world knows*. For they own no revelation
ever had fo fair a plea, and fuch probable grounds to fupport
its pretenfions, as the Chriftian revelation has. However there-
fore, the generality of the Deifts were fatisfied to lay afide the
Ghrifllan religion, which will not allow them that liberty in
following the courfes that they are refolved upon, without put-
ting any thing into its place ; yet the more fober fort faw, that
to reje6\ this religion and put none in its place, would, by the

L i world

* De Veritate, pag. 55 " Religion is a common notice, we

" ought to fee therefore what things in religion are acknowledged by
<« umverfal confent. let ali be gathered together, and thofe things in
«* religion which are acknowledged by all to be true are to he reckon-
" ed common notices. But yea will fay that this is a taik of immenfe
« labour* But no other way remains for arriving at thofe truths that
" Fnay he reckoned common notices. Which however we value fo
" highly, that in thefe alone the fecrsts of divine univerfal wiidom can
" be fouiid."

274 AM INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiix.

world, be counted plain atbeirra, uhich defervedly is odious
in the world. Therefore they Taw there was a neceiTity of iub-
fiituting one in its pince.

Now firKre revelation was rcjecVed, nothing remained, but to
pretend, that realbn was able to fupply the defedl and aflbrd a
i'ufficlent religion, a religion that is able to aniwer all the pur-
pofes for which others pretend revealed religion neceflary.

When once {iiey were come tl>is length, it was eafy to fee
that it uiiglit be ijiquired, Whether this rational religion lay
within the reach o* every man's reafon, or was only to be found
out by petfons of learning?

If it is pretended, that only perfons of learning, application
and uncommon abilities, could attain the dilcovery of this re-
ligion, the diificuUics whereon ths* pretenders are caft, are ob-
viouf<.

Wh.^t fiiall then become of their argiimcnt againH; revealed
religion, ** that it is not univerfal, that it is not received by all
mankind, that therefore it is not amended wi;hfuHicient evi-
dctic.:." Upon this fuppcfition there is a fair ground for retort-
ing the argument, wlili no iel^s, if not more force, againfl natu-
ral religion.

AgJiin, what lliall became of th;it plea, which they make, for
natural religion, *' that God mufi provide all his creatures in
the mcuHs necclfary for attaining that happinefs they are capa-
ble of?" May they not, on this fuppofuion, be urged, that,
according to it, the generality are not provided with fuch means?

Nor will it avail to pretend, that thofe who are capable cf
this difcovery, are obliged to teach others the laws of nature*
For, it m.ay be inquired, Mufl the people take all on trull from
th-ni, or fee with their own eyes? If they mull take all on truft,
then is lliere not here a fair occafion fur charging priefi-craft
upon them, Vv'ho blame it fo much in others ? Will not this o-
Idige our wits, men of reafon and learning, to turn creed and
Jyfiem'??iakers? Further, what will they fay of their own negle<fl,
and the neglecl of the learned world in this matter? How will
they reconcile tiiis to the notion of God's goodnefs, of which
they talk fo much, to Aifpend the happinefs of the greater part
of mankind on their care and diligence, who quite negieit them,
biU keep up their knowledge, and thereby expofe the poor vul-
gar to inevitable ruin? Moreover, ifthryjet up for teachers,
they muft ibew their credentials. Finally, there is no place,
i]pon this fuppofuion, left for the ftrongetl pleas for a fuMici-

ent

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 275

ent religion, that is common to mankind, which are taken
from the nature of God and man, and their mutual relation ;
becaule ail thefe arguments conclude equally for all n33tikind,
and (o are not adapted to alTert fome peculiar prerogative in one
above another. Nor are any able to juftify a claim to any fur-
ther ability this way, than be can Tatisfy the world of, by the
effects of it. When a man pretends to no other abilities, than
fuch as are due to human nature, that kg is a man is fullicient
to juftify his claim; but if he pretends to fome eminency in na-
tural or acquired endowments above others, he mufl give fuch
proofs of it, as the nature of the thing requires; that is, he mud
make it appear, that he has that ability, by atllngs proportion-
able to the nature and degree of the power that he claims; and
further than this is done, no wife man will believe him. It
will not help them out here, to fay, that they only of better ca-
pacities, and who have more Icifure, are able to difcover this
natural religion ; but the vulgar are capable of judging and fee-
ing wiih their own eyes when it is propofed : For, befides that
all the former .difficulties, or moft of them recur here, fiill it
may be inquired, Is this made appear? The difficulties on this
fide are unfurmountable.

Wherefore, of neccllity, they mud maintain, ** that every
man is able to find out and difcover what is fuHkient for himfelf
in metters of religion.' But now when this is alTerted, if the
experience of the world lie againfl them, and it be found, as is
commonly fuppofed, that many nations, nay, the far greater
part of mankind, had no fuch religion, this will much prejudge
their opinion, about every man's having this ability of finding
out a religion, or as much in religion as was necefiary to his
own happinefs.

How will they perfuade the u'orld of fuch an ability, if expe-
rience is not made appear to favour them? it is commonly
thought, and we have made it appear, that the wifefl men, when
they elfayed what pou'er they had of this fort, foully blundered,
a.nd fell fhort of fatlcfying either themfelves or others ; and that
the world generally acknoivledged the want of any experience
of this ability, and therefore looked after revelations with that
greedinefs, (hat laid them open to be impofed on, by every vain
pretender to fupsrnatural revelation-

Now if things are allowed to be thus, how ihali they pro-^re
man pofletred of this power, if they are cut orl from the advan-
tage of the ufual fountain of conviction, ia maUtrs of this nature?

What

^70 AN INCIUIRY INTO THE chap, mil

What is the w^ we come to know, that ali men have a power
of underflanding, or that fuch a power is due to his nature? Is
it not hence, that wherever we meet with m.cn, we find them
exerting the a«5ls of underftanding? And the like may be faid
of his other powers. Now if it is once admiitted, that there arc
iingle perlons, nay, whole nations, yea more, many nations
that have no experience of this pretended ability, in'reference
to matters of religion, how will they ever be able to perfuade the
world that all m.en have it? More efpccially, if it be admitted,
that the learned themfelves were heredefe6tive, as to that which
perfonsof the meaneft abilities and leafl leifure are fuppoied a-
ble for : this will look very ill, if a man who toils all his days
at the plough and harrow, could make this difcovery, how could
a man of learning and application find it hard.

In a word, if things are thus rtatecl, as is generally fuppofed,
and has been already proven, and fhall be further c'eared anon,
then there is little left them to pretend for this natural and uni-
verfal ability of mankind in matters of religion, if not perhaps,
to tell us a ftory of God's being obliged, in point of gcodnefs, to
endow ail mankind with a capacity, whereof there is no evidence
inexperience; yea, which the experience of the world plainly
declares them to want. But this will not eafily take with men
of fobriety and fenfe : For it is not more evident, that there is a
God, than, that this God mujl do whatever is proper and ftxit able
for him to do : And on the contrar}'', that it zufis not nccejfary or
proper for him to do any thing that really he has not done. If
then, any iball pretend it becoming or neceffary for God to do
any thing, which experience (hews he has not done, he will be
fo far from obtaining credit with the world, that on the contrary
he will jullly fall under the fufpicion of atheifm, and an evil
defign againft God. For to fay, that God in point of gocdnefs,
was obliged to do this, which experience Oiews he has not done
is plainly to fay, God adied not as became him. There was
therefore a plain neceliity of undertaking to prove experience on
their fide, if Deifm was to be fupportcd.

If the common apprehenfions of men, who enjoy the light of
Chriftianity, with refpeCl to the flate of the Heathen world, are
v/eli grounded, ail (he pretences of DciOs as to the fufficiency
of natural religion are for ever ruined, and quite fubver(ed.

It was but necelTary therefore, that the learned Herbert, who
undertook to maintain the caufe, fhould attempt to (liew, that
experience was on their fide, and that in facl a religion in it-

felf

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 277

{■A{ fuflficient did univerfally obtain. And he bad the more rca-
ion to be concerned in tliis matter, becaufe he avows it as his
opinion, that without a fuppofuion of fuch an univerfal religion
as the Dciils do plead for, Providence cannot be maintained.
Et quideriij fays he, quum media ad viBum veflitumque heic
accommodata fuppeditarit cundis 7iatura Jive previdentia re-
rvvi cowmumSi Jufpicari non potui, cmidem De urn, five ex
' natura,five ex gratia in fuppeditandis ad beatiorem hoc nqftro
* ftatum mediisy ulli hominum deejfe pojfe, vel velle, adeo ut li"
' cet mediis tllis parum reBe vel jeliciter ufi fint Gentiles ^ hand
' ita iamen per Deum optimum maximum ftetent, quo minus
' Jalvi fierent* »' And as it is clear that this author thinks, that
Providence is not to be maintained without an univerfal religi-
on ; fo it is fufficiently evident, that this univerfal religion Is
not to be maintained, if experience lies againfl it.

Here then was a plain neceflity for undertaking this argu-
ment, and proving, or at leaft pretending to prove, that all man-
kind had a fufricient religion, or were able to know ail that was
necelTary. For we fee the whole frame of Deifm fails to the
ground, if this is overthrown. This therefore was an under-
taking worthy of our noble author's great parts, long experi-
ence, great charity to mankind, and the great concern he pro-
felTes to hnd in himfelf for the vindication of Providence.

And fure if fuch a man, after fo much pain?, has failed in
the proof of this point, any that may fucceed him, may juflly
defpair of fuccefs. He read ail the Heathen authors to find this
univerfal religion, and he was as willing and defirous to find it
as any man. And he has given in this learned book evidence
enough of his reading.

But fince no religion was to be admitted, fave that whereon
all men were agreed, it was wifely done by our author, that he
reduced this univerfal creed to a few articles* For one who
knew fo much of the fiate of the world, could not but fee, that
they "Were not very many wherein they were asrced.

Well,

* De Rclig. Gentil. Cap. i. pag. 4. — <* And indeed as the coinmon
" nature or providence of things here, has furnifhed all men with full
« means of food and cloathing, L could not fufpe<ft that the fame God,
"either from his nature or from grace, could or would be wanting to
" any of mankind in fupplying him with the means of attaining a more
« happy ftate than the prefent, fo that although the Heathens ufed thofe
" means unlkilfully or unhappily, yet the beft and greateft God was
" cot to-be blamed for their not being faved."

278 AN INQ_U1RY INTO THE chap. xiv.

Well, he undertakes and f^oes through with the work, and
concludes with that memorable triumph above mentioned ; ** Jt-
*' que ita (fed non fine jnultipliciy accurataque religionum turn
** d?f/'eclioney turn infpedionej quinqueillos articulos, fipius jam
** aadudos deprehendi' Om5us etiam inveritis me Jeliciorem
** quoms Archiinede exijlimavi*'

But one might poiTibiy a(k, How it could cod our author To
much labour and pains to find out this religion, and to fever
the articles belonging to it from others, with which they were
intermixed, when every illiterate man mull be fuppofedable to
do this?

However, if our author is not belied by common fame, he re-
pented, that he had fpent his time fo ill in contributing fo far
to the advancement of irreligion ; though others contradict this
and tell us, that dying he left this advice to his children, —
** They talk of trufting in Chrifi for falvation ; but I would
*' have you be virtuous, and trufi: to your virtue, to make you'
*' happy."

Whatever there is as to this, I fhali now proceed to examine
our author's arguments.

CHAP. XIV.

fhUrcin it is inquired, Whether Herbert has proved that his five
Articles did univerfally obtain ?

T ^yE have heard our author's five articles above ; he pretends
* '' to make it appear, that they were every where receiv-
ed ; we fhall now inquire, Whether the arguments adduced by
him do evirxc this? And then in the next place, vvc (liali fee
whether it is indeed true. And for method's fake, we fhall ipeak
of every article apart, and dilTe6l and infped his book, to
find all that he offers, which has the leaft appearance of proof.

ARTICLE I.

There is One Supreme God,

TH AT which our author pretends to prove as to this arti-
cle is, that it was generally owned by all nations, that there is
one Supreme Beings and that this Supreme Being, .whom they

owaed*

PRINCIPlrES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 279

Cvvned, was the fame whom we adore. Wc are not now to
difpute, whether tliis article may be known by the light of na-
ture ; nor whether fome particular perf&ns went not a great xxzy
in the acknowledgmen.t of it. This we have before granted :
But the queliion is, Whether all nations agreed in this, that
there is one Supreme God, and he the very fame whom we adore?
Let us hear our author, '* Quarnvis enhn de aliqidhus alijs Dsi,
** five attrihutisi^ive muntribus dijceptatio inter veteres fjfet, uti
** fuo loco monjirahimus \ fummum tamen aliquem extare, and
** Jemper extitijfe Deum, neque apudfupientes, negue apttd infipi-
** entes dubiuin (putoj fuit*^' And afterwaids, when bethinks
the fird part of his article fuihciently cleared, he proceeds to the
fecond part of it, ** Reliquum ejl, ut Deupi fummum Gentiliur/if
tnndiun ac noflrum e[[e probcmus.'\' Thus we fee what our au-
thor pretends. Whether he has proved this, we are nov/ to in-
quire. Ke has not digefied his arguments, nor caft them into
any fuch mould, as might make it obvious wherein the force of
them lies, and therefore we muft be at pains to fcrape to-
gether, whatever is anywhere through his book dropped, that
may contribute in the leall toward the Orengthening of his
caufe ; and we il-all not omit any thing willingly, that has tiie
leaf! appearance of force.

The firft obfervation our author infills on to this purpofe is,
** That the Gentiles did not intend the fame by the name
God J that we now do. We by that name deiicn the Supreme,
Eternal, Independent Being ; whereas they intend no more than
any virtue or power fuperior to man, on which man did any way
depend." Id oinne D€um vocita,runt quod vim a/iguam eximia?n in
injeriordj fed m homines pr^ccipue ederet.X This he frequent-
ly inculcates, and tells us in the firft page of his book, that the
obfervation of this, was that which inclined him to think, or

pre fume

* De Relig. Gent. pag. 158. — *< For although there may have been
" difputes among the ancients about certahi other attributes cr cfHces of
'* God, ?.s vre fnali (hew in its own place, yer it was never doubted, I
*' think eidier among the wife or the unvvife, that fome Supreme God
" exifted, and had always exifted. "

f Ibid, 106. — "It remains to prove that the Suprerne God of tl;e
** Heathen's was the fame as curs."

* De Relig. Gent. pa^]. i3.~'< T^ev call.eti all that God, which
<* produced any ccnfiderable effed on inferior thing?, bu: efpccirily
** upon rren."

28o AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv.

prcfurr.e the Gentiles not chargeable with that grofs Polythcifm,
with which moft do, and he hiniCelf had, upon an flight view
of their religion, well nigh once concluded them chargeable.

If the Gentiles rrreant the fame by the word God, which we
^o, no doubt they ftand chargeable with the moft grofs, unac-
countable, abfurd and ridiculous Polythcifm imaginable : For
fcarce is there any thing animate or inanimate, but by fome way
or other became deified. Qiiicguid /rumi(s,pelaguSf calum mira-
hiU gignuntf id dexere deoSt colles, jreta, JIuminay Jlamjnas*

But our athor is not willing to admit that they were (o ab-
furd ; and to induce us to favourable fentiraents, he has bleffed
us with this obfervation, I'hat when they called thofe creatures
animate and inanimate gods^ they meant no fuch thing as we do
by that name^ Well, if we Ibould grant that the wifer fort, at
leaft, or perhaps even the vulgar too, did fometimes fo under-
Oand the word, as he alleges, will that ferve his purpofe, and
fatisfy him ? Nay, by no means, unlefs we grant him, that
they always fo uiiderilood the word, fave when they fpoke of
the One true God, But this is too iriuch to be granted, unlefs
he prove it ; elpecially if we are able to evince, that not a few,
both wife and unwiTe, believed that there were more than One
Eternal, Independent Being : and polTibly this may be made
appear afterward. A learned author, in reproach of the Gre-
ci:^n r-nd Roman learning, fays, ** That fetting afide wliat they
" learned out of Egypt, they could never by themfelves de-
'* termine whether there were many Gods or but one\>'*

The nex^ thing our author infifls on to this purpofe, 15;,
** That different names do not always point out different gods,
but different virtues of the fame God." ** Tot Dei apptl-
" lationesy quot vninera^ adeoq ; fi triginta milia Deum no-
'* mina quod ah CLnomao & Hejiodo in 'Seoyow^s perhibetar,
'' jupponat qi'.ifpiam, 6? tot ejus munera dariy Jatendum ejU''
fays Seneca, quoted by our author:}:. And conlcqucntially to

this,

* Aurel. contr. Sym. Lib. I. — " Wh?t<"ver wonderful thing the
'* earth, the fea, or Scy produced, that they called gods — hills, feas,
'* riverr, fire."

+ Wolfely's Scripture Belief, pag. 110.

i Seneca Lib. 5. Cap. 17. Herbert de Reiig. Gent. pag. 13. — " We
«« n-iUfl confefs that there is as many names of Cod, as there are ofScPs,
" fothat if any one fupjnife that there are thirty thoufar.d di:ferent names
«« of gods, as ii related by Oenomaus and Hefiod in his Theogony, we
" mull acknowledge that there are likevvifc as many offices of the Dtitv."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 281

ilils, the fame Seneca tells as, ** Sapientes nequaquam Jov- m
** cum Intellexifie, o/ji in Capitolio aut alijs templis fulrr.ino
** armatus cernereiur, fed potius mentem animumque exiOi-
'* malTe omnium cuftodem, univerfiq ; adminiftratorem, qui
** banc rerum univerfalitatem condidcrit, ac eandem nutu fuo
•* gubernet, ac propteria divlna qucsq ; nomina ei convenire.
** Itaq ; optimo jure fatum appellari polTe, ut a quo crdo feii-
" efve caufarum inter fe aptarum dcpendeat. Ita is Providenii-
** am dicit, quum ipfe provideat ut omnia perpetuo ac peren-
<* ni quodam curfu, ad finem ad quern ditlinata funt, currunt:
'* Naturam quoque nuncupari, ex eo enim cundta nafcuntur,
** per cum quicquid vitse eft particeps, vivet: Mundi quin criam
** nomcn illi congruere. Q^iicqoud fub afpedum cadit, jpfecO,
** qui feipfo nitirur, & omnia ambitu fuo complcclitur, univer-
** faque numine fuo compltt.*'* To the fame purpofe fpeaks
Servius of all the Stoicks, quoted llkewife by our auihcr.f The
plain EngliOi of ail is, he would perfuade us that by thcfc tefii-
monies he has proved, that the Geniiles, M'hen they att:ibutcd
the name of god to fo many things, inlended no more, but to
let out fo many different viriues, which all refided in the fafne
God. -^

As to this, we may grant, that our author has indeed proved,
That different nam.es do not always point out difiercnt gods ; for
lis has told us that each of their gods had many diifercnt n^m^es.
But this will do him no fervice, if we grant not, that different
names never point out different gods. But how {hall we do this,
when our author has Ihewed us, that many nations wor(hippcd

M m 'the

* Herb. De. Rel. Gent, pat;^;.— « Wife men did not meanby Jiipi-
" ter, that ft .tue that is feen in the Capitol and orher (eniiJes, arn-icd
" withthunderbolrs] but rather ti. ought that thac Mind and Soul wasju -
•♦ piter, which was the Guardian and Governor ot the Univerfe,vvho for-
« med this whole world, aiid governs it by his nod, and that all ci\ine
" names agree to him He may therefore be very juftly called Fatt^, as
" on him the order and feries cf connedcd caufes depends.Thus too he
" may be called Providence, as he provides thac ail things mould tend
'* to the end for which they were def.ined, in a conftanr and perptrtual
« courie. He may hkewife be called Nature, for all things ariie irura

" w -j"^ ^'^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^° ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^'- ^'^y ^^^'^ f^^e na;ne of
" World may agree to him, for whatever is viilbie is himfelf, who dc-
« pends on himfelf, furrcunds all things wiih his circua.fcrcrxe, and
« hil.s^aJlth;ngs with his divine prefence."
t Do Rcji^;. Gentii. pag. 37.

282 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ghap. xiv.

the fun, moon, ai>d ftars ; and thought them gods, yezj diftin6t
ones too, different in their natures as u eli as names. Each ot them
indeed had different names, nay each of them .' ad inany names,
titles or elogies heaped on them by their fond worfnippers, who
no doubt fancied, that their gods were fmitten wiih thai fame
vanity, wherewith they themfelves were tainted ; which yet as
learned Rivet obfcrves, had a dangerous effe6l upon the vulgar
in procefs of time: for ihey were not fo quick in their obferva-
tions as our author. ** Coacervacis enun eiogiis, titulif que conge f-
** tiSi caplnumen putabant, maximoqut inch affici honor t; iia ut
** tandem qu-- diverfa tantum nomina jupeijiitionis Jueranty graf-
*^ Jante error e^ divtrfa numina haberentur,'^'*

Further, we know full well that fome of the more wife and
learned men, efpecialiy after the light of the gofpel began to
rtiine through the wcrid, began to be aflianied of their religion,
and efpecialiy the number of their gods, and to ufe the fame
Ihifto, to pailiatc the fooiiin and wild Polytheifm, which the
gofpel fo fully ejipofed : and particularly Seneca, who was con-
temporary with Paul, (and by fome, upon what ground I now
inquire not, is faid to have converfed with him) and others of
the Stoicks fteered this courfe, to vindicate their religion againd
the aifaulis of the Chriftians. But it is as true, this was a foolifh
attempt, and its fuccefs I cannot better exprefs, than in the
words of the learned and excellent Dr. Owen, *' PoiK|uum au-
*' tem feverius paulo inter nonnullos philofophari cceptum efi,
** atque 1imatior(^s de natura divina opiniones inter piurimos ob-
•' tinuerant, faplenits pudcre ccepit eorum deorum, quos pro-
** tulerant ferrea frcula, ip:norantia & tenebris tota devoluta,
** Omnia idco, fuix de dljs iictitijs, Jove fcil : totoque facro he-
*' lenif-ni choragio, vulgo celcbrata crant, res natuiales adum-
.** bralle apud antiqous M-jI^^Aoo/s? contcndcrunt. Theologiam banc
*' ^\-j^iy.r,v vocant, quam nihil aliud fuilfe aiunt, quam naturje
*' doClfinani allegoricam.t" And fome palTages after, he ihews

the

* Ad Has. 2. 8. Pvcferente Owen Thcolog. pn?. 189. — «< For
*<. they thoiiLjht that uyi Deity was chnrmc.l w.th encomiiuiis ?.nd ti-
** ties heaped one abov :; another, and receivca great honour from thence,
" fo that at length thofe different names, dtvifed by fnperltition, by
" the progrefs of error, caaie t^ be reckop.t.d different deities.

+ UW\ fupra pag. i(^6. — " But after philofophy began to be more
" fcrioafi/ cultivated, ani more corrtd opinions concerning the divine
*' nature had taken pkv? among die generaiiiy, the wife men began to

" be.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 283

the vanity of this attempt. ** Pofiquarn enim eyangelii lumen
*' ufque adeo radiis fuis terrarum orbem perculiffet, uleiube-
** fcenda veteris fuperditionis inf-inia apud ipfum vulgus in con-
~ ** temptum venerit, acutiores lophiRss, qoud dixi, quo ftulliliam
** iftam colore novo fucatam, amabilem redderent, figmento
** huic (N. B.) cuiadverfatur omnis hiiloriae fides, perJinacif-
" fime adhseferunt. Inr.o, ut obiter dicam innovata eft priniis
** ecclefiae temporibus apud ipfos Gentiles, tota philoibphandi
" ratio.*" Any one that would defjre to fee the folly of this
obfervation expol'ed, on which our author lays fo much ftr els,
may perufe that chapter, whence thefe words are quctedf. i^'or
is this more than what Velleius fpeaks of Zeno a Stoick and o-
thers," CumHefiodi ^Eoyot^av interpretatur, toilit cmnino,(N. B.)
" ufitatasperceptafque, cognitiones deorimi.:!:" <^<^'

But were this true, which thofe quotations pretend, it will
not yet come up to our author's purpofe ; for thefe quotations
tell us not that all the world were of this mind, but only the
wife men; and I fear that ihis too needs a refiriction. Now
this comes not near to the point. When our author has occahon
to notice fome abfurd pra6iices or opinions that are againft him,
he rejeasthem with this, ** Qiiod a paucu [olummodo fuptrfitti-
** oft faduviy non fatis in rdiriomm ajferitur, Nos auU?7i hand
^ -^ " alia

« be alhamed of thofe gods, which had been invented in the iron ages,
« that were entirely involved in ignorance and daiknefs, andthereiure
<( they maintained that all thofe things that had been commonly report-
« ed of the fiftitioiis gods, viz.Jupiter and all the hierarchy of Greece,
«* fignified onlv certain natural things in the fcnfc of the ancient Myiho-
ii logifts. And they called this Mythological Divinity, which they
« fa?d was nothing clfe than the knowledge of nature, veiled by alle-

* Ubi fupra. pag, 198.—" For after the light of the gofpel had (0
« far enlightened the world with its rays, that the Ihameful madnefs
" of the a'ncient fuperftition had fallen into conteir^pt, even among the
« vulgar, the more acute fophiih, as I faid before, in order to render
*< that foolery amiable, by giving it a new colour, adlsered moft oblli-
" nately to this fiaion, though oopofue to all the faith oi hiftory, nay,
<< we may obferve in paffing, that in the f.rft ages of the church, the
« manner of. philofophifing among the Heathens underwent a total
" change."

i Owen ubi fupra. Lib 3, Cap. 6.

+ Cicero de Nat. Door. Lib. i.— *^ Vv'hen he interprets the Theo-
« gonv of Heiiod, he entirely overturns altogeuier ?he ufual and re-
<" ceived traditions concerning the gods."

284 AM INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv.

** aha quam qu.'C omnes, vel pUrique faltem colutrtyfiih rdigionis
** titulo pouimuS'*" Now let this be, as it is, the ftateefihe
quefiion, and what fonie of the wifer did, is nothing at all to the
purpofe; ard this indeed is the point. In fine, we doubt not
before v/e have done, from our author's own book, to demon-
ftrate, that wliat he aims at in this obfervation, and confequent-
ly all the fiory of the jnyfiick theology of the Heathens, is ut-
terly inconfident with all faith of hiitory, which makes us as fure
of this, as they can of any thing, that many nations, nay mofi;
nations, nay nioft wife men held a plurality of gods, even in the
fcnfe our author v\ould deny. Tlie next obfervation he makes, is
akin to the former. He, follow in gVcdius, as he tells us, divides
nil the Gentiles' worihip into proper^ JymboUcal ^nd mixt.'^'
Proper is, when the true God, or the fun, or the moon is wor-
fhipped as the true God, and the worftnp is defigned ultimately
tj terminate in their honour: Symbolic is, when the true God
is worfnipped in the fun, as an image, reprefentation or fym-
bol of hi?T> ; tlien the worihip is not defigned only, nor mainly
to terminate on the fun, but on the true God. As for the
mixt, we ave not concerned to fpcak of it. Ke would every
where have us to believe, that all their worfliip was fymbolical,
and as fuch he frequently ieems to juiV.fy and avouch it as rea-
fonable, which the Papifts will readily tliank him for ; and he
cxprefiy aiferts this, th.it all ** their worihip, fave what was di-
reitlv audreflc-d to the true God,*' which I believe was very lit-
tle, *' was fymbolic." Atque cultum proprium nullum Juijfe
olvn preterqucv7i furmni Dei, videtur.X ^^ is well that he expreilcs
this pcfition modcftly, as being confcious how great ground o-
thers will fee to jud^e otherwife. And the reafon that follows,
drawn tVom the alleged evidences of the thing, we Ihall have
under conhderation anon. But toward the clote of his bcok, he
calls them ignorarJs, oi Jcioliy that believes not as he believes
in this matter.

But

* Do Relig. Gent. pa^r. 12. — " What was done fuperftitioufly by a
<< few only, cannot be faid to be a part of the gcner.d relij^ion, but
<c we place under ihe tide of religion no nther things than thofe which
n all, or at kali the moft part practiied."

t Jbld. Y^%' 183.

t Ibid. pag. 226. — " And there feems to have been no proper wor-
" Ihip of old, e.-flcept that of the Supreme God."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 285

But it would be expected, that when he advances fuch a bold
pofition, and is To hard on them that diffcnt from him, he would
give good proof of it ; but if any expe6t that, he will find him-
ielf deceived. 1 find indeed a paffage quoted with a high com-
mendation to this purpofe. *' Atque hie dt cullu dei Jymbolico
•* preclarum. locum ex Maximo Tyrio, Dijfert- 38. quef/i adducit
** Vo^ius, fupprimere non poffum> Burbari o?nnes pariter De^
" V7?i ejjt intciligunt ; conjlituere interim fibi alia atque alia fig^
** na : ignanPerfi imaginem qnt unum duret diem, vorax quid
*' ^ in faiiabiley fie Maximi verba vtrtit Voj]ius*'' But what
is all this to the purpofe ? Doth this quotation from a Platonic
philofopher, who lived an hundred and fifty years after Chrift,
when the gofpel had overfpread the whole world, and chafed
the i^agan darknefs away, and made them ail^amed of their old
opinions, and improven reafon, prove any thing? To fpend
time on this, after what has been laid above, were to trifle with
a witnefs. The Deifis have not, nor can they ever prove the
truth o- this bold affcrtion ; the falfhood of which we may dete<5l
before we have done. But hitherto our author has only ufed
hhjiiield; we muft next fee whether his fword be not of bet-
ter metal. All that has been hitherto faid, is only a dcfenfa-
tive for the Heathen's opinions and practice : We mull now iee
by what arguments he proves that his firl\ article did univer-
ialiy obtain.

His firfl argument leans upon a few quotations from fome Hea-
thens, who ailert, that there is one Supreme Being, fuch asHi-
erocles, Zoroailer, and others, fome of old and fome of late.

But all this is nothing to the purpofe : For were there twenty
times more who faid fo, this v.'iil not prove the point he is obli-
ged to make good. He has undertaken to (hew that it was not
doubted among wife or unwife, tkat there was one fupre?ne God,
and ke the fame whom we adore. Now what is this to the pur-
pofe, to bring the opinions of a few learned men, without tel-
ling what were the opinions of the nations or times where they
lived, or of the world at large V It is not the queilion, What Se-
neca,

* De Rcl. Gent. pag. 70.—" And here! cannot fupprefs a famous
« place in Maximus Tyrius, DifT. 38. which is quoted by VoiTius.
" All the barbarians believe equally that there is a God, but fet up
•* diiterent figns or repiefenrations of hira. For exnirple, the Perilans
*•' chufefire, an image that laih but one day, fomething voracious and
♦' infatiablc. Thus does Voluus render the words of Maximus."

286 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv.

neca, Zcroafler, Plato, and twenty more, thought, nay what
whole nations bebdes thought? but. What the whole world
thought -in this matter? This the argument touches not.

His next argument is drawn from the confeiTion ofieveral di-
vines. With this he begins his fifteenth chapter, and frequent-
ly Ipeaks of it. But this favs no more for him, than other, and
perhaps more confiderable teOimonies, do againO him. Befides,
fmce he has not condeicended on the perfons who fall in with
him here, nor their words, we murt "^ leave them ,* as we are
not concerned in them, nor obliged to follow them further,
than thev do the truth.

But that which he lavs the mod flrefs on, is the fuppofed evi-
dence of the thing*. This he frequently infifts on, as to all his
articles; and its force amounts to this — It is fo clear that there is
one only Suprenie Beings and that the fun nor no other is he, that
it could not efcape the m.oit dull and unthinking.

But here our author puts me in mind of the companions of
Chriftopher Columbus, whofirft difcovered Am-erica, about the
year i ^,92 ; thev were one day at table with him, and began to
depreciate and undervalue the diifcovery he had made, telling
him how eafily others might have done it. Well, fays he, I
hold you a wager, I do what none of you IhaU do, and prefent-
ly calling for an egg, fays he, none of you can make that
eg^ ftand flralght on the table ; which when they had effayed
to no purpofe, he tikes it, and crufhes the end of it a little,
and then it flood eafily ; which, when they all faid it was eafy
to do : Well, fays he, it is very true, ye can do it after 1 have
done it. It is ealy to fee things after they are difcovered to
our hand, whi-h we would otherwife never have thought of.
Ail the world was not fo difcerning asour author was, and his
followers pretended to be, and he has given us fufficient proof
of that in his book, and I truly wonder with what face any man
could make ufe of this argument after he had read, much more
after he had u^rit fuch a book, wherein it is made clear as the
day, that many nations believed no other God but the fun,
moon and flars, as we Ihall lliew afterwards. And 1 mud take
the freedom to fay, that our ndble and learned author, with the
reft of the Deiiis, and all the philoiophers, who lived fince the
o-ofoel obtained in the world, owe more to tlie Chriftian religion,
than they have the ingenuity to own. What they think fo

clear

* De'Tvclig. Gent, pag, 1S2, i65.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 287

clear, when revelaiion has not only taught them the truths, but
the grounds of them.vvas dark not only to the vulgar, but to the
wifellof old. I cannot better conclude this, than by tranfcribing
a pailage of the ingenious Mr. Lock's EJay on Human Under-
ftanding — " Had you or 1, (fays he, fpeaking 2,ho\Minnatt: ideas)
*' been born at the bay of Seldania, pofTibly our thoughts and no-
** tionshad not exceeded thefe brutiili ones of the Hotentots that
** mhabit there ; and had the Virginian king, Apochancana
** been educated in England, he had, perhaps, been as know-
** ing a divine, and as good a mathematician as any in it. The
** difference between him and a more improved Englilhman,
** lying barely in this, that the exercife of his faculties was
** bounded within the ways, and modes and notions of his own
** country, and was never directed to any other or farther in-
*' quiries : And if he had not any idea of a God as we have,
•* it was only becaufe he purfued not thofe thoughts, that would
** certainly have led him to it." Thus far Mr. Lock. If
fome men had been born where the gofpel light has not come,
they would have learned to talk more foberly of iht fufficiency
qi the light of nature.

The only thing that remains fcr him to prove as to this firft
article is. That this One Supreme God, whom he thinks the
Gentiles all centered in, was the jfame God with him. whom \vq
worfhip. For this he refers us to three fcriptures — Rom i. 19.
A6fs X. throughout, and A6^s xvii. 28, 6cc.

Our author has not drawn any argument from thofe pafTages,
but barely refers to them. He was particularly unlucky in
quoting the laft of them : For it obliged him to take notice of
an argument arifing obviouily from the paffage, againR the pur-
pofe he adduced it for the proof of ; and indeed that paffage af-
fords feveral arguments againil; our author's opinion in this mat-
ter, which are not eafy to be folved, if they who follow him,
were to be determined by fcripture arguments. But our noble
author has fcarce fairly laid the objediion, which he ftarted X»
himfelf from the altar to the unknown God. But tofpeak home to
the purpofe — -There are only two things that can be drawn from
thefe or the like paffages. I. That fome of the Gentiles knew
the true God. 2. That all of them had fom.e notions of truth
concerning God, or which were only rightly applicable to the
trus God* The actings of confcience within, and the works of
God without them, enforced on them the impreffion of feme
Power, fuperior to themfelves, on which they depended; ard

this

288 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xiv.

this was indeed a notion of truth concerning God ; for this xv^is
only juftly applicable to the true God : But yet they, through
their darknefs and wickednefs, when they came to inquire n7ore
particularly after the true God, applied thefe notions to crea-
tures, and took them for this true God.

Now this is indeed all, befides bare and repeated aflertions,
that 1 can find in our author, to prove that his firft article ob-
tained univerfally : And how far it is from proving this, is evi-
dent from what has been faid.

ARTICLE II.

T/iis One Supreme Gcd is to be worjhipped*

THE fecond article our author has not attempted a fufiici-
ent, nay nor any feparatc proof of: Wherefore we go onto
the next.

ARTICLE III.

That Virtue and Piety are the principal parts of the zvorfkip of
this one true God*

THIS he alfo pretends to have univerfally obtained, and that
the Gentiles expe£led not Heaven for their worlhip, or their
iacred performances, but for their 7«(?ra/ worfhip, that is, their
\irtues. To prove this, is the defign of our author's 15th chap-
ter, at Icaft till pag. 195.

The firft thing he infills on to this purpofe is, the high rel-
pe6> which the Heathens put on thole things, while they ranked,
/nens, ratio, pittas, fides, pudicitia, [pes ^vA jclicitas\ , aniongft
ilic number of their gods, and ercdted temples to tliem. '1 his
lie proves at large. But what all this makes to his purpoic,
1 am not yet fatisfied.

This indeed proves that they had a refpeCt to all thofe thing/.
V^cj-y true, io they had, and thai becaule of their ufefulncis in
huinan foclety. Yea this proves that they had an undue relpucl
to them, fo as to perform ads of worihip to them. But that
they defigned to worfhip God by thoi'e virtues, which ihey
would not allow they had from him, as we Ihall hear altei wards,

is

* Mind, Reafon, Pietj, Faith, Hope, and Happi»efs.

PRINCL^LES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 289

IS not fo eafily proven. Befides, this was cniy at Rome that
thefe altars were ered^ed, and fo is far from concluding as to the
red of the world, where virtue, hope, (&c. had no fuch temples.
The next thing our author mentions for proof of the univer-
fal reception of this article, is the cujlom of the Heathens in dei-
Jying their heroes on account of their virtues and piety. But
our author knew too much of the Gentiles' religion to believe
that this proves any more, than the fulfome flattery of the blind-
ed world that deified even devils, and, as our author elfewhere
well obferves, men that were no better than devils ; or if there
was any more in this cudom, when at firft invented, it was only
fome ill applied piece of gratitude to perfons, who had been
their benefa6\ors, or the henefa6iors of mankind. And all this
refpeC^, that was put on them, v/as not hecaufe their virtues re-
fktSied any glory on God, but becaufe they had been ufeful to
men. Befides, religion was old in the world before this novel
Grecian invention took place. As the Roman poet and fatyriil
obferved,

— nee turha decrum

Talisy ut eji hodie-, conteiitaqize fydera paucis
NuminibuSi mijerum urgeharit Atlanta minore
PiuJere,*

Nor did this univerfally obtain. So that the argument con-
cludes juft nothing. It neither proves that all the world were
agreed tliat virtue and piety are the principal parts of the wor-
fhip of God, nor that on acccnnt of thefe, men get eternal hap-
pinefs. What their in:mortality was, of which they talked,
we may fee under the fifth article.

Some few quotations from Cicero, Seneca, Plato, and one or
two more compofe our authr^r's laH argument. Seneca fpeaking
fbmewhere of Scipio Aflricanus fays, ** Animam quidem ejus
** in ccelum, ex quoerat, rediffe perfuadeo, non quod magnos
** exercitus duxit (hos enim Cambyfes furiofus, & furore felici-
** ter ufus habuit) ied ob egregiam moderationem, pietatemque.
** Cicero Lib, de Offic. Deos piacatos facit pietas & fanctitas.'*
And elfewhere he fays, ** Nee eft ulla erga decs plctas, niii

N n ** honeda

* " Nor^was there fuch a mnldtude of gods, as there is now, nnd
" the iUrs being content with a fe;v deities, preiTcd the poor Atlas
« -vvith kfi. wei<rht."

250 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv.

** honcfta de niimine eorum ac mente opinio : Qiium cxpeti ni-
** hil ab iisquod fit injuftuin, ac in honeAuni arbitrere *" Some
others he adduces from Plato and others, wherein they fay, that
happinefsand likenefs to God arc obtained by virtue.

But to what purpofe are all thele brought ? I. There is word
here of gods, and their worfhip ar.d piety as refpc»S\ing ihem ;
i)ut not one word of the One trueGcd, of whom aionc we
fpeak. 2, It is certain that this piety and fan(ftity accoiding to
thofe authors, comprehended the worfliip of their gods, as our
author exprefly confcfies, ^^ Atque ad pietatem confu}n:natu?}] plu-
** rima infuper [thM is, befides virtue of which he fpeaks before)
** po/iulan aiehanf, fedea prefertini qw! grati infuperos animi
** indicia etTent, puta /acrificia, ritu & ctranonas & kujufmo'
** di alia quorum Jar r ago ingensjuit : C teriim fine prxdiBis
** divis five deabus, am mam regentibui, aditiim in ccshim non
** dari.Y' This lall put is only our author's fay, and is not re-
ccncileable with what he tells us of their drifting fomi-, who
we e fo far from being gods, that tliey were, fays he, Ne viri
qiizdcm probi.X 3- As for wliat Cicero fays, •' Thit for virtue
and piety v> e are advanced to heaven ;" I do not know weil how
to reconcile it with what he fays elfcvvhere in his book de Ami-
ciiia^ " Vult plane virtus honorem : nee virtiitii efi ulla alia mer-
cesT otherwife than by thinking that by heaven, (his ccclmUf)
lie meant, that which many of them meant by their immortality^
that is, an -immortal fame, a good reputation after they are
gone, asTiongft the furvivers. As for Seneca, Chriftianily had

taught

* De Re!i?. Grnti). pa^. 187 — "Tarn perfuaded that his foul re-
'* turnrd to thar heaven fro;n whence it came, not bt^caufe he had great
<* armies (for Cambyfis who was a madiran, and fortunare \-\ his madnefs,
" had thefe too) but on account of his rcinsrkable moderation and pi-

<* ery Piety and hoiincfs appeafe the gods Nor is

" there anv piety towards the gods, except an honourable o^nnion of
" their deity and mind, '.-rhen one thinks that nothing unjull and dif-
" honourable ihouid ue aiked of them/'

+ Ibid. pav>:. 185. — « And thev faid, that many other things befides
<■< were requifuc in order to conlHtute '^erfeft piety, but efpccialiy fuch
<< things as-viere iiidlcarions of a mind gratef'.il to the gods, viz. fjcri-
*' lices, rites, and csrcmonie'^, and ether thinps of t!»'.s fort, of which
<< there w-as a g'-eat number, but that there was no acccfs to heaven
«« without the aibrefaid gods and goJilelies, who directed the foal."

\ ibid, pag. 195. — " Not even good men,''

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 291

taught him a little more, and his teftimony is not much to be
regarded. 4. Were there twenty ir.oie of them, they never
come near tea proof of the point: it is the fentiments of the
world that we are inquiring after, and not what were the thoughts
of fome of the more improved philoiophers. The queliion is
not, Whether men by the light of nature faw an excellency in vir-
tue, and that it was to be followed ? but, Whether they looked on
It as a part, a principal part of the worfliip, not of their deities,
but of ;he one true God ; and that for which heaven, not that
imaginary heaven which men had at their difpofal ; but an eter-^
nity of hap pine f s tn communion with God, is to be obtained?
Now our author advances nothing to prove this point.

ARTICLE IV.

JVe miijL repent when zoe do amy's*

A S to this article our author confefTes fevcral things, which
it will be m.eet to notice in the entry, i. He owns that the
ancients, the wifer fort of them, thought not repentance a fufH-
cient atonement for the grolTer fort of (ins;* and quctesCicero,
faying, Expiatio fcelerufu in homines nulla ejl,\ Where Gcd
was offended they iought fan<Siuary in repentance, and thought
it fufficient, but not where men were wronged. *' C^teruin licit
" in remedium peccati^ ubi Dei fummi majejias L'dereiur, paniten'
'* tiam five dolor em efficacem e[Je crederent : Nsn itatamenvbi ho'
** mines injuria vel contiimelilii afficerentur, de pcenitentia ilia
*' ftatuebant Gentiles-t" 2. He con feiTes that they thought not,
** Repentance alone a fulTicient atonement.!!" He tells us, that
they had Expiationes lujirationcjque, fine quibus neque ctimine
neque poena folutos femetipfos arbitrahantur . Again, 3. He
confefTes that the word repentance, or penitence, was rarely ufed
among the ancients, in that fenfe we ufe it. *' Neque mihi dubi^

" iim

* De Rel. Gent, pag, 197.

+ Cicero de Leg. Lib. i. — " There is no expiation of crimes
" agaijjft men."

X De Rcl. Gent. pag. 198. — " But although they thcjght that pen.
« itencc or foriovv was an efFtrcluai mean of taking away iinj
*< whereby the majcUy of the Supreme God was injured, yet they had
« not the fame opinion of penitence, in rrgard to thofe fms whereby
" men v/rre injured and infuhcd."

II Ibid. pag. 1 9 J.

'02 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap,

XIV,

" um ^uin eorum (fal, ptccatorum) panituerit Gentiles, guc
*' fot mala, accercerunt ; licet ranus quidem pmmtentic verbum
*' inter aiaores, ec quo jam ufarpatur ftnfi reperiutur,**' Since
then he makes all thefe concelTions, there remains no more lave
this, that he pretends ail the ** world were agreed upon rapen-
** tance, as that which was of uiz to expiate, M lead, iome lef-
" ler faults committed againft God, and that we Ihould, when
" we (in, be grieved for it." <

To prove this, he quotes feme pafiages from Ovid, Seneca
and fome others. The only confiderable teftimony is from Peri-
ander, who was one of the feven Mafe men of Greece : One of
whofe fentences, he f-ws it was AV^pr^v UiraQoKiva^ Te mail
pamteaf, ubi peccaveris, Seneca fays. Quern pccniiet peccojfe
pene eji innocens. And Ovid,

Scepe le-oam pcenr.Sy ereptaque Iu7r,i7ta redduvt
'^t7n bene pecccti pcenitnfjj'e -videsj;

But all thefe are alleged to no purpofe. They do not prove
ilxdl repentance vras looked on as an expiation by (he Gentiles.
Ovid and Seneca lived too late in the world, and had too great
accefs (o learn from others, to be nf^ucb regarded in this matter;
hut they only fpeak their own mind, and we have here no argu-
ment of the agreement of the world as to any thingaboutrepen-
tanq^. 'i he opinions of the wife are no jull rneafurc of the
knowledge or apnrehenfions of the vulgar.

But that whereon our author feerns to lay more (Irefs, is their
facrinces, which he pretends are an evidence of their grief for
fin, or repentance.^ Ouo?yum enim mfi intern o dolore perciti, tot
ritusfacraque ad d'eos placandos excogitaffentX -^

But, I. if the Gentiles had been as much agreed about re-
pentance as our author pretend?;, they would indeed have fpa-
red all this pains and coll. 2. Tliey were indeed grieved, but this
grief they did not willingly entertain, nor allow themfelves in

as

* De Rel. Gent. pag. 198.--'' Nor is h a doubt with ire that the
" Gentiles n^pented of thofe crimes which brought fo many evils upon
<< them, although the word repen(ance, in that fenfe in which it is now
" ufed feldom occurs in their authors."

+ « You fee tliat he who duly repents of his otTence often alJevi-
« ares his puniihment, and reilores his lofilig'jt."

t ^* For to what purpofe, unlefs they had l;ficn prompted by inward
*« iforrov/, would tl-ey have contrived fo many rites and faciifices ior
*< appeafmor the gods :"

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 293

as their duty; but looked upon it as their termcnt, and fought
landuary in means proper for appe^fing their gods, as they
thou^:ht. 3. This grief, which facrifices prove them to have
had, is no more but" that uneafy fenfe of fin in the confcience,
which is a part of its punilhment, and no duty performed for
their delivera/ice ; and this forced them upon all ways that they
could imagine to get rid of it ; fo that facrifices were what they
betook themlelves to, to fave themielves, or procure a deliver-
ance from our author's peniiencc 4« Further, our auihor,
when it is for his purpofe, can put another conftruaion on their
facrifices ; while we have heard above, he makes them only ab-
furd enough teftimonies of gratitude to the gods, and to have no
refneft to fin at all. It is indeed true, that fcmetimes they were
in this way ufed ; fo Pythagoras is faid to have ufed them when
he oiTered hecatombe to the gods, for a propofition w hich he
found out ; but for ordinary they were defigned as expiatory.
r. Do their facrifices, which they ottered to fo many gods,
prove that they were troubled for offending the one true God ?
\ believe not. Ay, but this was what our author fl^ouid have
proved. 6. Docs our author tell us that they were fo little a-
greed about this purgative, that no lefs a perfon than Plato dif-
cardcd repentance, and put philofophy inits room, as that where-
by only v/e could be purged ? And this leads me to a 7th thing,
that fhev;s of hov/ little lignification this preterided proof is,
That it is known that the moredifcerning philoiophers m.^de moft ?
light of thofe facrifices, yea, of fm, and conlequently of our
author's catholic remedy, repentance. As to the fufficiency of
rep ntance for the place he aingns it, we have fpoken to it a-,
bove. Our author, I think, has badly proven that rt univer-
fallv obtained. And indeed had there been as m.uch weight
laid on it as is pretended, we could not have mifTed a more large
account of it in the writings of the Gentiles. Further, 8. Our
author pretends, that repentance is of no avail, as to the groljer
evils, but only waQies away lcff<r fins, and we fear our auti.or
would find fome difficulty tc provq that generally the Gen-
tiles were fo concerned for leffer fins, as he pretends. 9. Had
they been fov/ell agreed, as he pretends, about repentance, and
had this been the defign of their facrifices, 1 do not well un-
derffand why our author fliould make fuch oppofiticn betwixt
facrifices and repentance, as elfewhere he does; when he is
fpeaking of feveral faults of the Heathen priefts, he fubjcins—
** Scd& hoc pejus, quod quum ex vera venule, vd June uhi ex-

** ciicrint

294 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. xiv.

" ciderint ex panitentia vera, pactm internam comparare debw
iffent, adritus^ facra, qu£ ipjij SciL Sacer dotes ) peragerent
** res perduBa efi, &€. *" Here it would feem plain, that the
people came at length, If not of their own accord, yet by the
perluafion of prierts, to overlook repentance, and reje^ if,
iubftituting other things in its room ; and when once this ob-
tained in one generation, it is like it might Ipread and obtain
in after ages, being tranfmitted from father to fon, and the
prieOs carrying on the cheat ; and fo at leaft the v/orld in all
ages hath not made any account of repentance as the only ex-
piation.^ Again, it would feem from our author, that facrifices
did not import, and were not evidences of repentance , but on
the contrary, means invented to make people negleft it.f I do
not well underHandhow they, who, if we may believe our author,
were all fo fully agreed about repentance, and were fo prone
and inclined to it, that their minds run into it without any,
perfuafion, fnould need fo much the prielh' perfuafion, and be
eafily drawn off from what they accounted fo available. Let us
hear our author. Speaking of man's recovery from fin. fays
he, ** Atque inflauratione7n hanc fieri dcbere ex panitentia,
** docuere tu?nphilo/ophi, turn facer dotes, ita ut hanc a gen dam
** animamque purificandum, fed non fne eorum minifleno, ft"
''^ plus inculcarent. Bent quidem fi pcrnitentiam fatis populo
perfuafjjent, quod neutiquam tamen ab illis fa&um fuit ; licet
adeo prona in earn fit anima liumana, ut etiam nuUo fuadente^
in foTO interna ex gratia diviiia, confcientlfque didamine de-
** cernatur,X' Our author tells us, that the people's facrilices
were an argument of their repentance, as we heard above, and
that the prielis perfuadcd them to it, and that they were all

agreed

* Do Rel. Gent. pa^. lo — « But this too is worfe, that when they

" ought to have fought hnvard peace by true virtue, or when they had

'^ fallen from it, by true penitence, the matter was reduced to rites and

'•' iacrifices performed by the priefts."

% Ibid. pag. 107.

■f « And both 'the philofophers and the priefts taught that^this rc-
«' covcry mull be brouohc about by repentance, fo that they often in-
'* culcared that this ought to be done and the foul purified, but not
•' ^^i;h ;Ut their miniltry. It would have been well indeed if they had
" fjflicienily pcrfuaded the people to penitence, which however was
'* not done by them, although the human mind is io prone to it, that
" even without any adviler it is determined in the inward court by the
»• diviiic grace and the didatc of confciencc."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 295

agreed, that repentance was the only atonement, and that the
mind of man needs no admonilher to peri'uade it to repentance;
and yet he tells us likewiTe in the palTages adduced, That
repentance was quite laid by, facrificcs and rites put in its
place, the people lb ignorant of the worth- of it as to let it go,
and fo backward as not to look after it, uniefs the priefts had
preffed it more, (and yet we are told they inculcated it oft) and
in fine, the prieUs fo negligent that they quite neglciSled tbeir du-
ty. How to knit all this together I know not. I do think it were
eafier to make thefe words overthrow our author's argument,
than to reconcile them with themfelves, with truth, reafon, or
experience ; but I fparc refle61ions that offer themfehes. Be-
fore our author, or the Deifts, make any thing of this argument,
they muft prove, ** That facrifices univerfally obtained — That
facrifices were every where ofTered to the One True GOD-—
That thofe facrifices were fymbolical of repentance," as ano-
ther Deift has it, and fcveral other things taken notice of a-
.bove.

ARTICLE V.

That there arc rewards and punijlimaiis after this life*

WE are now come to cur author's laft article,
very conftant in exprefiBng himfelf about this article, and how
far it was agreed to. Sometim:;s he pretends, that thefe rewards
v<!CYC eternal happinefs J and that this v.as agreed ; fometimes on-
ly it was agreed that there were rewards and punifhments after
this life ; and fometimes he words it yet mere modefiiy , that they
expe&ed rewards and punilbments, either in this lijey or ajter
it. So pag. 2OC5, when he enters exprefly to treat of this arti-
cle, Et quidem premium bonis i3 fupplicium malis^ (N. B.J vet
in hac vita, vel pojl hanc vitum dan, Jlatuekant Gentiles*.''

And indeed when he cotnes to tell us how far is determina-
ble in this matter by the light of nature, he makes this article
of very little fignification. " Non imperite quidem, bonos
** bona, males mala, vel in eternum manere affirmabant vete-
*' res. At quis locum prasmii, vel pcenas oflenderit ? Qjns

*' fupplicii

* " And indeed the Heathens we«*e of opinion, that there would be
" a reward to the good, and a puniihrnent to the wicked, either in thit
« life or after this life."

296 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE CHAP.xr;.

** rupplicli genus conje£^2vbrlt?" (And the fame U perfe<ft]y the
cale :js to rewards, though our author waves that, for uhat
caufe it is not hard to conjecture.) ** Qj»'s tandem durationis
" tertninurn pofuerit * i'*

All that he pret^^nds to have heen received, was barely this,
'* 7'hat there are rewards a. id puniil.medts after this life." Let
us hear himself, ** Et quidem pra^ter folennem illann notitiam
** communem, nempe, deiim bonum juftumq ; effe, adeoq ;
*' pEseadum vel pccnam tum in hac vita, turn pofl banc vitam,
** pro aftionibus, imo & cogitationibus fuis unicuique rt^metiri,
** nihil quod verifimile magis effet ab iilis ftatui pofle decerni-
*' mus f." But he teiis us, that by the additions they made to
this, and proceeding to determine further than they knew, even
this came to be ca'led in queftion, (w'lich, bv the way, ruins
our author's caufe as to this article) but let himfelf fpeak,
** Dutn haec philorophl, ilia faceidotes, alia demum pocta:
'^ sdjicerent, tota inclinata in cafumq ; prona nutavit veritatis
*' fabrica. Si femet fatis coercuiflent Gentilium coriph^ei, ne-
*' minem, puto, dilTentientcm habiwircnt.:):

He aiTerts very little, we fee, to have univ.erfally obtained as
to this article, and he Teems to do more than iniinuate, that even,
as to this littUi at leall, in procefs of time there were fome, and
even not a icw diilenters: For I know not v/hat meaning elfe
to put upon the *' whole fabric of truth nodding,'' and " inclin-
ing to fall :" And this is to quit the caufe. We fliall however
notice his arguments, but the more (hortiy, becaufe of what has
been already cbferved.

Firft,

* Dc E-clig. Gent. pso;. 2 ro. — *•' The ancients indeed not unikil fully
*< afHrm-^d that good things awaited the good, and evil the wicked,
" even for ever. But v/ho could fnow the place cl: reward or pim-
♦« ilhment ? Who could guefs die kind cf puniihrnent ? . . . Who
" at hfr can fix the term of their duration ?"

+ " And indeed bolides that foletim common notice, that there is a
*< God who is good and juR, and confeqaenilv will reward and piiniHi
** every one, I'Oth in this life and afi^r this life, according to his ac-
" ticns, and even to his thoughts, we ihink that nothing inore pio-
" b>Tbie could he deterrnint'd by rheiii."

:{'^ While t\\Q philofophers added fome things, the priefls others,
" and the poets others further, the u-hoie fabric of truth was ruiiied
<f and fell to the ground. . If the leaders of the Heathens could have
f« reilralned themfcivcs, I think that they would have had nobody
'» di'tcriof? from rhem."

Principles of tke modern deists. 297

Firft then, he pretends, that the perfuafion o( ihis \s in naie*,
that the reaions of it are To obvious, and the arguir.ents heading
to it are lb evident, that they could not but agree as to this.f

But I have already ihown, that every thing that is evident, or
was (o to our author and his companions and followers, was not
fo to the ancient fages. I guefs that he learned moft of thcfe ar-
guments he infiiis on from fome others than the Heathen phiiof-
ophers, or if they managed them (o well, he would have done
right to hav£ pointed us to the places where they have done fo»
But when he has done this it will nat prove an univtrfal cori'
Jent: For we are concerned in fome others befides philofophers.
As for what he ptetends of this perfuafion's being innate, I think
he has faid much to diiprove it himfeif; or if it be, I think the pre-
fages of future mifery in the mind of man, have been much more
firong than of happinels. And in a word, he only fays it was in-
nate, but does not prove it. Yea, if this did not univerfally ob-
tain, according to our author's own do6\ritie, it was not innate.

Next he infifls on the cuflom of deifying heroes, and placing
them among the number of the immortal gods. This he hints
at frequently. But this did not univerfaily obtain as to time or
place, and fo hit not the point in theleaf^- All were not fo dig-
nified, nay, not all that were good ; nor does it prove, that even
all that people, among whom ihiscuilom prevailed, were of r, :it
opinion; but only the perfons principally concerned. And in-
deed it were eafy to (liew that they were not all of this opinion,
which may polTibly be made appear in the next chapter.

His next argument is deduced from a {^\\ teOimonies of poets
and philofophers averting a future flate, which he has fcattered
up and down, here and there. But what is this to all the world ?
Do the poets' fancies of Ely fian fields , Styx and the like, give us
the true meafure of the fentiments of the world ?

Thus I have viewed our author's proofs of his five articles,
and their reception in the world. I have not knowingly omitted
any thing of moment, advanced by him for his opinion. I (liall
conclude this chapter with a few general reflections on our au-
thor's ccndu6l in this atTalr.

I do not a little fufpect a writer of controverfy, when he hud'
dies up, and endeavours to conceal the Hate of the qaeilion, and
fhifts it upon occafion. It is alv/ays a fign either that his judg-

O o raent

* D2 R.e^. Gent. pag. 211. + ibid. pag. 4,

298 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xiv.

ment is naught, or that his defigns a-e not fair and Qood. I do
not believe that our nolle aulhor's abilities required any fuch
njean (liifts, if the badnefs of the caufe he unhappily undertook,
had not obliged him : Bat that this ia the courfe he fteers, is evi-
dent. Now he feems to undertake tD (hew us, what the oioit
univerfal apprehenfions of men were in matters oi religion ; and
anon, he pretends to tell us what the more diicerning perfona, a-
mong the Heathens thought; and thusfnifts the fcene, as it is for
his piirpofe.

It is further remarkable, that our aut'ior has crammed in a
great deal of philofophical learning, which makes nothing at
all to the main purpofe of the book. He has writ a book of
230 pages to prove that thefe five articles obtained : whereas
all the arguments he adduces, fcarce take up ten of them. The
refi is acoTle6\ionof hillorical and philological learning about the
Heathen gods and woriliip. He only drops here and there the
ihadow of an argument; and then when we are fome pages by
it, he tells us he has dern'onftrated this already, and we ar« re-
ferred back to fome of the preceeding arguments ; and that is,
we are bid fear ch for a needle among fl a heap of hay* This looks
exceeding fufpicious like.*

Again, i do not like frequent and repeated aflfertions in a dif-r
p t» nt without arguments. Fewer aifertions and more argU'
m;:nts, if the caufe had permitted, v/ould liave done better. If
is faid.that fome by tcUinga lie often over, come at length to be-
lieve it to be t!ue. 1 am apt to think that the oft alTerting over
and over again what he undertakes to prove, might go further
toward his ov/n conviction, than all the arguments that he has
advanced.

Our author undertakes to give us an account what the Plea-
th.^n's thoughts as to thofe articles were, and what led them to
thefe apprehenfions; but after all, you ihall find nothing but an
account of fome o-" their pra6iices,with our author's glolTes put oa
them, and the reafon that, not they, but he thinks mav be al«
Icged in juiliiication of their pravSlices and opinions. If he had
dealt fairly he would have told us in their own words, what
their fcntiments were, and likewife, what were their induce-
ments that led them into thofe opinions: but to obtrude, as e-
vcry where he doth, his conjeilures and drained interpretations,
as their meaning, is perfei'^iv intolerable.

It

* Read the conc'ufion of our author's 8. C:;p, pag. 54. r.nd com-
pare it with the Cap,

PRI>XIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, 299

It is indeed true, thnt our author affords us feveral quctat*onr.
from the Heathens; but doth he, by this means, give us a fair
reprefentation of the point in controverfy, and their fentirrjects
about it? No. If his reader is fo fitnple as to take this for gran-
ted, he deceives himfelf. I know it is the cuftom of feme others,
as well as our author, though perhaps on better defigns, to quote
fome paffages from Heathen authors, in order to (hew their a-
greenient with. Chnftianity, and to what a length the mere
light of nature brought them ; but hereby they do deceive the
reader : So Cicero's teitimony to the immortality of the foul, is
alleged by our author, pag. 192, *^ Qu€??iadmocfu?n igitur haut
** alius Deus, haut alia virtus, ab GentilibuSy quam ah nojtris,
** 011771 cdehratUTy ita certe communis utriuJquefpesimmGrtalha"
** tis fuit> Diftrtim Cicero 2 de. Leg, ait, animi hominitm
*' Junt immortaUs : Sed fortiu?n bonorum divini & alibi iii Lib*
*' de SeneBute att : Nan eji lugenda mors, quum immortalitas
*' confequitiir*" Now if any body Ihould think that this tefti-
inony of Cicero gives a full account of his apprehenfions about
immortality, they would be very far deceived ; For in his firft
book of lufculan Quejbons, wh.ere he difculTes this point ex pro-
fejfo, he diicovers indeed an inclination to believe it, and a de-
fire that it may be true ; yet fuch a hefitation about it, that he
knows not how to perfuade himfelf of it, as we fhall (liew per-
haps in the next chapter. In like manner Plato is cited by him,
and many others to the fame purpofe : But what a fad uncer-
tainty both Socrates and Plato were in about this point, I (hall
fully demonflrate in the next chapter. I {hall here fet down
only one notable inHance of the unfairnefs of this v.'ay of pro-
cedure. Our author quotes Solon's teftiir.ony iox Juturt Jdici-
ty, p2g« IQ4' Let us hear our author's ov/n words, " Fulchram
** diJlinBionem inter felicem Jive jcrtvnattm ^ beatum ajfert ex
*' Solo?is Herodotus Lib i. Vbi Crccfo refpondens, ait neminem
** dignum ejfe qui vocetur htatus antequam r£>.si;rr,<7si rov E;o» sv hoc
** €ft, vitavijuamhtne cluvjerit ; adeoquezoroyj^fivejortunatmn

'* hac

* " As therefore there was no other God; nor any other virtue for-
<' merly celebrated among the Gentiles than by our writers, fo fiir«=ly
*' both of them had a common hope of immortality ; for Cicero fays
« exprcfsly, 2d de Legibus, that the fools of men are immortal, and
" thofe of the brave and good are divine: and elfeuhere in his book oa
" Old Age he fays, that^death v-hich immedistely follows, is not ta
" be mj'rned for.'*

ooo AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xiv.

** hac in vita, nequaquam ''C7f^r.v five heatum ante ohitum ejus ho*
" milium appellan pojfe. Huic concinit Ovidius,

Diciq ; heatus
Ante ohitum nemo, fupremaque funera, debet,

** Proprie quippe loquendo, nemo keatus ante mortem: Ita ut
** beaii infer Gentiles vocarentur, quiin Ely/iis campis Jempiterno
** dvojiuerentiir**'

No^v here we have a proof to the full of our author's con-
d Jit in his quotations, and the improvement of them. Was
not Solon clear that there was a Hate of happincfs after this life?
Who can doubt it, after our author has thus proved it ? But
what if Solon for ail this, confined happlnefs to this life, de-
fining the happy man, *' One who is competently furnifhed
** with outwa-d things, a6l5 honeflly, and lives temperately f;'*
which definition no kfs a perfon than Ariilotle approves. And
in all Solon's fpeech to Crefus, there is not one word, if it
were not difingenuoufly or ignorantly quoted, that gives us the
leaft oround to believe that So'on once fo much as dreamed of
kappinefs after this life. Stanley in his Life of Solon recites
from Herodotes this whole fpeech, and the ftory to which it
relates t. Crefu. king of Lydia in Afia the Lefs, fends for
Solon upon the (aix^c of his v/ildom. Solon comes. The vain
king, dazzled with the lufire of his own greatnefs, alked the
wile So'.on, Whether ever he faw any man happier than him-
felf, who was poiTeired of fo great riches and power? Solon
named feverals, particularly Tellus the Athenian citizen, Cleobis
and Bito, two brothers ; the Oory of whom he relates to Crefus,
and gives the reaions why he looked on them as happy, without
ever a hint of their enjoying any happinefs after this life. At

which

* i< Herodotus from Solon quotes a fine didiniflion betwixt a lucky

« or fortunate and a happy man, in his firil book, when bolon anfwer^

<«^ in.; Crefus, fays that nobody tkferves to be called happy, till he has

<* ended his life well, and confequently that although a man may be

" called lucky or fortunate in this life, but that he ought not to be cal-

<f led happv before his death. A.nd Ovid agrees with him, *' Nor ought

" any to be called happy before his death, and the lall ceremony of

« his funeral." For properly fpeaklng none is Happy before his death*

« So that thofe were eail^d happy among the Gentiles who enjoyed an

«» eternal lite in the Elydan fields."

f Stanley's Life of S -Ion, pag. 26. J Ibid. pag. 28, 29.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 301

which Crefus was angry, thinking himfelf undervalued ;
whereupon Solon thus addrciTes him — "Do you inquire, Crefus,
" concerning human affairs of me, who know, that divine
^^ providence is fevere, and full of alteration ? In procefs of
*' time, we fee many things \ve would not ; we futTer many
'^ things we would not. Let us propofe feventy years as the
'^ term of man's life, which years confift of 25200 days, be
'^ fides the additional month ; if we make one year longer than
'^ another by that month, to make the time accord, the additional
" months belonging to thofe years will be thirty-five, and the
*^ days 1050, — whereof one is not in all things like another. So
'^ that every man, O Crefus, is miferable ! You appear tome
'* very rich, and is king over many ; but thequeOion you de-
^* mand 1 cannot refolve, until I heard you have ended your days
^' happily ; he that hath much wealth is not happier than he
'- who gets his living from day to day, unlefs fortune continuing
^' all thofe good things to him, grant that he die well. There
^' are many men very rich, yet unfortunate; many of mode-
" rate eftales, fortunate ; of whom he who abounds in wealth,
<< and is not happy, exceeds the fortunate only in two things,
<i the other him in many ; the rich is more able to fatisfy his
<< defires, and to overcome great injuries ; yet the fortunate
i' excels him. He cannot indeed inflict hurt on others, and fa-
ii tisfy his own defires; his good fortune debars him of thofe :
But he is free from evils, healthful, happy in his children,
a and beautiful ; if to this, a man dies well, that is, he whom
you feek, who deferves to be called happy ; before death
he cannot be ftiied happy, but fortunate ; yet for one man
to obtain all this is impofiible, as one country cannot fur-
niih itfelf with all things : Some it hath, others it wants;
that which hath moft is beft, fo in men not one is perfe6t ;
a what one hath the other wants. He who hath confiantly
ti moft, and at laft quietly departs this life, in my opinion, O
ti king, deferves to bear that name. In every thing we mu'a
'• have regard to the end, whither it tends ; for many to whom
«^ God difpenfeth all good fortunes, he at lafi utterly fubverts."
Thus we fee the whole paffage, in which it is evident that So-
lon meant only, thaftomake a man happy, it is requifite he
continue in the enjoyment of a competency till death, and that
then he die well, that is, quietly and in good refpecl or credit
with men. That this is the meaning of dywg zoell according
to Solon, is not only evident from the firain of the difcourie,

but

302 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xiv,

but from the Ooiiesof Tellus, Cleobis and Blto, v.'bom he in-
rtances as bapvv men, becaufe of their creditable deaths. The
firft he tfils us died in defence of his country, after he had
put his eneniies to flight, ** he died nobly, and the Athenians
buried him in the place where he fell, with much honour."
The two brothers, Cleobis and Bito, drev/ their mother's chariot
forty-five Oadia, and with the. Rrefs died next morning in
the temple, and (o died honourably* And any that will rive
himfelf the trouble to read Ovid's flory of Adeon, in his third
book of his Metamorph. wiU fee it clear as the day, that hs
meant ju(\ the fame, tie reprefents how happy one might
have thought Cadmus, confidcring how many things he had
that were defirable in his lot, a kingdom, relations, and chil-
dren, had not Adeon his grand -child's fate interrupted the fe-
ries of his joys, and made him iniferable. Whereupon the po-
et concludes, ** Till de^th a man cannot be called happy ;"
that is, till a man has without interruption, enjoyed a trac^ of
profperity, and dies creditably, without any mixture of ill for-
tune.

n

yam fiahatit Thehce : Poteras jam Cadmet 'vidc
Exilio felix : Sorceri tihi Marfave I' enujque
Contigerant : Hue adde geuus de covjuge tonta^
^fot jiaioSi natafque, ^ pignsra cava iie.potes.
Has quoquc jmn jwvt'fres : Jed Jcilicet ultima Jemper
ExpeSanda dies homini ejli dicique beatus
Ante obi turn nemo, fupremaque funera debet.
Prima ncpos inter res *ot fibi Cadmcy fecundas
CaujA fuit Juciusy l^Sc, *

And thus he proceeds to tell the ftory of Actcon's being
transformed into a hart. Thus we fee with v/hat candor our
author quotes the Heathens. Here he has firft broke offforne
words from their context, whereby the unwary reader is temp-
ted

* Ovid. Metamorph. Lib. 3. — <« And now Thebes was built ; nowr
" O Cadmus, you might feem to be happy in your banilhment. Mar*,
** and Venus was your father and mother in law; add to this, a race
*< from fo iUuilrious m confort, fa many fons and daughters, atul grand-
*« children, dear pledges, r.nd thefe too alrca-ly y oaths ; bin truly a
" man mart ahvays look for his tall day, and nobody can be called
" happy before his death, andlart funeral rites. Amidlt io uiuch prof-
** perity, O Cadmus, agrar.dfon was the iir'l caufe of moiirning to you."

PRikClPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 303

ted to believe, that the fpeaker meant quite another thing than
really he did ; and then obtrudes this falle fenfc of one or two
trien's words., who were wiie rnen, and in their thoughts tar a-
bove the vuigar, as the harnionious meaning of the Gentile
world.

Nor do I think it O.range that our author (nculd ferve us fo,
feeing he was prepofleired in favour of the Heathen's religion be-
fore he began to read their books. For he tells us in the entry
of his book, the very firPi fenlence of it, and more fully in the
reft of the nrfi chapter, Thar he was at once very concerned
for the divme provtdtnce, and withal fully convinced that it
could not not be maintained wiihout there were a religion com-
mon to all men j or, as his words formerly quoted by us ex-
prefs it, *' Uniefs every man was provided with tlie means that
** were needful for attaining future happinefs ;" io he went to
the books of the Heathens under a perfuafion that there was a
common religion there, could he be fo lucky as to light on it,
and therefore no doubt he drew and ftrainecj tilings to his pur-
pofe, both rites and words. Thus he begins his difccurfe about
expiation : ** Qi.iofdam Gentiiium ritus, qui in fenfum fani-
♦• orem trahi poQunt, jam traaaturus*," &c. And indeed he
draws them to a fouader j'enfe than ever they put or. then?.
But, after all, forced prayers are not good for the fouU f^ays
the Scots proverb. And from one thus prepoil'cired, v/e can
expe<it,no fair account of the Gentile's fentiments.

Which, by the way, gives me occafion to remark, that if
any one deHres to underftand the mind of the Heathen philofo-
phers and fages, they fnould read them themfelves, or Heathen's
accounts of their lives and ad^ions, rather than thcfe done by
Chriltians ; becaufe very often when Chrlftians write their lives,
they have fome deiign, and they ftrain everything in the phi-
lofophers to a compliance either with their defigns or appre-
henfions. The Heathen writers being under no influence from
the fcripture light, do plainly narrate things as they are, (not
being fo fenhbie of what .things may refle6l really upon the
perfons concerning whom they write ; the light of nature not
reprefenting clearly that wickednefs v.'hlch is in many of their
actions and opinions) and fcrupls not to tell them out plainly :

whereas

* De Rel. Gent. pag. igr, — « Being now about to treat of fome
*' rites of tht^ iieathens, v/hich may be drawn irito a found fcrsie."

^04 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xiv,

whereas Chriftlans, being aware how odious fuch and fuch
pra6"^ices or principles are, dare fcarce tell fuch things of thofe
famous men, as they were really guilty of; becaufe they know
how deep a flain it u-ill leave on them, by thofe who are taught
the evil of them by the fcriptures.

I (hall jdd this reflection more : If any one would conclude
from our author's confidence in fome places of his book, where
he talks of many reafons that he has advanced, and that he has
demonftrated this and that ; if, I fay, from this they would in-
fer, that he was fully perfuaded in his own mind, about thefe
five articles f that they univerfally obtained, and are fuffiaent,
he would very far miRake our author, who, throughout his
book, fufficiently betrays his uncertainty about them, and that
he wanted not cijcar lefi it fhould not be true, as fome things
afterwards to be pleaded will (how. But leafi; this fhould feem
to be faid altogether u'ithout ground, I (hall fingle out one in-
Oance of cur author's wavering in this matter, referving others
Id another occafion. It is pag. 19, where, after our author has
difcourfed of the more f avion s names of the true God, and fliew-
cd that the Gentiles applied them all, fave one, to the fun, he
concludes thus, ** Haec faJtem fuere folenniora fummi Dei no-
*' mina inter Hebiseos extantia, quae etiam ad folem, Sabazio
*' excepto, a Gentilibus redu6la fuilTe, ex fupra-allatis conjec-
" turam facere licet. Adeo ut quamvis fuperius fole numen
** fub hifce praecertim vocabulis colucrunt Hebrsei, folem ne-
** quealiud numen intellexerunt Gentiles, nifi fortade in fole,
** tanquem prseclaro Dei fummi fpecimme, & fenfibili ejus,
** ut Plato vocat, fimulacro, Deum fummum ab illis cultum
'' fuiile cenfeas : Q^aod non facile abnuerim, prasfertim
** cum fymbolica fuerit omnis fere religio veteram *." But

perhaps

* De Re!. Gent, pag, 19. — « Thofe at leaft were the morefolemn
" names of the Suproir.e God, that we find among the Hebrews ; all
*« which except Sabazino, wc may conjeiTiure irom what has been qno-
*^ ted above, was .-applied by the GentileS to the fan. So that akhough
«<• the Hebrews woriliipped a delry fnperior to the fun, efpecially un-
** der thofe names, yet :he Gentiles underilood by them the lun, and
«' no other deity, unlefs perhaps in the fan, as an illuflrious reprefen-
f< tation and fenfible image, of the Supreme God, as Plato calls him,
" under which figure ws may fuppofe that the Supreme God was wor-
« fiiipped by them. Which I wouii not eafily contradi^i efpecially
^' asulniollall the religion of :he aacients was (ymbQiical."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 305

perhaps though our author was not well confirmed in his opini-
on, when he began his book, yet he came to fome more fixed-
ncfs before he got to the end of it. Well, let us hear him, in
his cenfure of the Gentile's religion in the laft chapter of his
book, where fpeaking of the worlhipping the heavens, the
fun, &c. he gives his judgment thus: " De hoc quidem dog-
*' mate, idem ac de priore cenfeo : Nempc, nifi fymboHcus
** fuerit, erroneum mihi prorfus videri cultum ilium. Csete-
** rum quod fymbolici fuerunt olum hujufmodi cultus, multae,
*' quas fupra adduximus» fuadere videntur rationes : Sed fuo-
** judicio hcic quoque utatur le6^or *.'* What more uncer-
tainty could any betray, than our author doth in thefe words ?
And indeed here we have enough to overthrow his whole book:
for if this firft article fall all will fall with it, as we may fee af-
terwards.

But it is now time that we draw to a conclufion of this chap-
cr, having fufficiently enervated our author's arguments, fo
far as we could difcern them. If any of them feem to be o-
mitted, I prefume they will be found to be of no great confider-
ation, and of an eafy difpatch to any that is acquainted with
this controverfy. Oar author's way of writing made it fome-
what difiicult to find his arguments. And indeed upon ferious
refle<S^ion, I can fcarce undetftand at what our author aimed in
this way of writing. He could never rationally expe6l that
this would clear the fubjeCl he had undertaken. 1 had almoft
concluded that his defipn behooved to be an oftcntation of
knowledge of the Heathen's religion, in order to make his au-
thority have the more weight, and to fcare people from enter-
taining a different opinion concerning the religion of the Hea-
then world, from that which one who had fo induftrioufly
fearched into their writinss, owned. But if tl is was it, our
author has miffed it. And I think inftead of doing the Deifts'
caufe any fervice this way, he has rather hurt it : for every
one that (liall perufe this work with attention, and find how

P p great

^ De Rciig- Gent. pag. 223. — " Concerning this dodlrine indeed,
" r am of the fame opinion as concerning the former, to wit, that
«* unlefs that worlhip was fymbclical, it feems to me to have been
<* quite erroner.us. But the many reafons which we Iiave addu-
«< ced above, feem to perfuadc us to believe that worfhip ot this kind
« of old was fymbolicaJ. But let th« reader nfc his own judgment in
<* this cafe likewife,"

3o6 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE €Hap.xv.

great our autlior's learning, diligence and induOry have been,
and yet how little he has been able to do, they will infer the
weaknefs of the caufe he has undertaken, and conclude, that
the caufe could bear no better defence, and that therefore a
weak and indefencible caufe has baffled our author's great a-
bilities and application. For

Ji Perganm dextra

Dcftndi pcJUenti etiam hac deftfija fuijfeni,*

C» Blount and they who have come after our author, as has
been faid before, do but copy after him, and take his notions
upon truil, but others v/ill be fomewhat more wife, and will
look whom Joey tiull in a matter of this importance.

Wherein it is ir.ade cpptar that Herbert's Five Articles did not
univerfally obtain,

'T X 7E have in the preceding chapter fufEciertly fhewed how^
^ ^ weak our noble author's proofs are of his univerfal re"
tigion- It now remains that we prove that what he pretends is
indeed falfe. Our work here is far more eafy, than what our
author undertook. He affeits that providence cannot be main-
tained, unlefs all mankind are provided in the means needful
for attaining future happinefs, and he is likewife clear, that
iefs cannot be allowed fufiicient for this tnd than the five arti-
cles mentioned, wherefore he pretends that all the world agreed
in owning thefe. Now to have made this lail appear, it was
needful it ftiould be proven by induaion of all particular na-
tions, that they thus agreed, and that as to all times; but this
would have been fomewhat too laborious. We maintain that
all did not agree in the acknowledgment of thofe five articles ;
And this is evinced, if we can (lievv onlv one nation diifeniing
from any one of them. But we Hiall not be fo nice upon the
point, as only to njention one nation^ or difprove one article'
Let us take a ieparate view of each article, and fee what the
judgment of fome nations were concerning them.

ARTICLE

* « If Troy could have been defended by any right hand> it

" would have been defended by this one."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 307

ARTICLE I.

All the World did not ag-^e in owning the One True Supreinc

God.

I MIGHT for proof of this, only defire any perfon to read
our author's book, and (here he woaidfind this fuiHciently clear.
But I ftiall fhortly co itirm it to the convittion of any, who has
not a mind to Qiut his eyes, by the fe\\' following obiervations
as to the fentiments of the world in this cafe.

I. It is moft evident to anv one, who will give himfelf the
trouble to read never fo littleofthe writings of the Gentiles, that
many nations, I had alnrroft faid moft nations, did hold a plu-
rality of eternal and independent beings^ on whom they depen-
ded, and which they caied gods in the propereft fenfe of the
word. Herodotus qucied by our author tells us, ** That ail
" the Africans woriliip the lun and moon only"—** Soli &
** lunae folummodo facrilicint, & quidem Afri univerfi *."
And Plato quoted iikewife by our author, a itw pages after, in
his dialogue, which he calls Cratylus, tells us, ** Qpi Grseciam
** primi incoluere, ii videntur mihi illos i lum dcos exiitiiuaiie,
** quos nunc eliam barbjri mJti, pro diis habent, foiem, lu-
** nam, terrnm, aftra, cceiumt'" Of this alto the ancient
infcriptions mentioned by our authorij:, and more parcicularly by
Hornbeck in his treatife de Converjione Gentilium, is a proof. —
*' Soli invi6\o h lunae aet^.n^ae deo foli invic^o Mythvae <5e; om-
•* nipotenti deo MythrseH " Mythras M^as a name given to the
fun by the Perfians, as our author proves. And if we may be-
lieve Maimonides, the Sabeans owned no God fave the Oars.
*• Notum ert Abrahamum patrcm noRrum educatuin eile in fide
** Sab2eorum, qui ftatueruiit nullum elTe Dcum, prater fleilas§-

Nor

* De Kt\, Gent. pag. 36.

•k Ibid. pag. 39. — " Thofe who firft inhabited Greece, appear to
<* me to have thought that thefe alone were gods, which many barba-
'* rians (iill hold to be god?, to wit, the fun, the moon, the tari^,
<» the ftars, the heaven."

X Ibid, pag 26. Ij Hornbeck, pag. 19.

§ More Nevochim, rcf-:rente. Hornbec ubi fupra. pag. 17. — "It
'< is well known that our father Abraham was educated in tlie faith of
'^ the t^abe::ns, who thought that there was no God except the itars.'*

3o8 AN INQ^UIRY 5INTO THE. chap. xv.

Nor were the Egyptians of another mind. Diodorus's teftiirony
is worth our notice to this purpoie, — '* Igitur piinii iili liomires
*' olim in JE^ypio ^eniti, hinc mundi ornatum conipicientes,
** admirantelque univcrforum naturam, daos cfie deos, &c tos
** aelernos arbitratri lunt, folem &Junann: Et ilium quidem
** Ofiridem, hanc Ifidim certa nominis raticne appellarunt *."

Thus we fee what the apprehenfions of feveral nations were,
and how harmonious they are in dilTenting from our author's
affertion. It had been eafy to have alleged many more teili-
monies even from our author againft himfeif : But we aim at
brevity.

2. It is not improbable, that fome nations, though they might
allow fome prioiity of one of their gods to the retl yet did not
think that there was any fuch great inequality, at leaf! amongft
their more notable deities, as could infer the fupremacy of one
to the reft, and their dependence on, and iubcrdination to him.
We find every where equal honours paid, equal or very little
ditierent titles of refpf-dt given to the fuo or moon- So that it
is very likely, though they might give the fun the preference in
point of orde-, yet they did not apprehend anv luch great ine-
quality, as feems needful betwixt one fupreme being and his
dependents* The people of Mexico in America, though they
woriiiip many gods, yet look on their two principal ones, whom
they call Vitzilopuckili and TezLdttipuca^ as two brothers.
** Mexicani pnmo coUre fohti fuerunt immanem deorum turham^
** bis milk refe runty inter quos duo prcipui Vitzilopuchth & Tez-
** cah'ipuca duo fratre^y quorum abnir rerum providtnti^^ alter
** hellis pr. erat\.'* And the inhabitants of Darien, St, Martha
and other places thereabout, own only the fun, and the moon
as his wife. Furlher, it is owned by our author feveral times,

that

* Owen Theolog. Lib. 3. Cap. 5. Herbert pag. 39. — *' Therefc^re
" thofe firft men rhat wc^re produced in- Egypt, obferving from thence
*' the beauty of the world, and admir'ng rhe nature ot the univerfe,
" concluded that there were twog ds, the fun and the moon, and
*' they called the one Oiiri, and tl]e other ifis, giving certain reafons
** for thofe names."

+ Hornbeck, pag. 70. — " The Mexicans at firft ufed to worfhip an
** imnicnfe nuint.er of gods, to wit, two thoufand, the chief among
" which were Vitzilop'JchtH and Tezcarlipnca, two brothers, the on«
*« of whom had the care of the world, and the other prcfidcd over
« wars."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 309

that many nations hold two flrft bdngs, one good and another
£vitt whom they called Ve-JupiteTy and by the Perfian Magi
he was ca led ArimaniuS' Though our author thinks a fofter
conftrudion is to be put on their meaning, than to charge them
wish uiakii g their Ve- Jupiter equal with the good God*: But
we know our author mult not be allowed to interpret, unlefs he
can give good g'ounds for his opinion about the meaning of the
Geniiie-s, which in this cafe he doth not once attempt, and we
know that fome looked on this wicked principle as ihc fupreme,
as we fhall '.how aeon ; and 1 think it will be hard to clear fomc
of them, yea even no lefs a perfon than Plutarch, from making
theni equal and both infinite ; if we mav believe a late author,
who tells us, ** That as for Plutarch, one of the fobereH of the
** philofbphfrs, he was the horrideft Polytbeift of them all ; for
•* lie aliens two Supreme Anti-gods; one infinitely good, and
** the oth r infinitely evil. f" Moreover, fome of the Deifts do
not think this opinion de^itute of probability, as we have noted
before |. But whatever there is as to this, yet,

3. It is certain that many of them, notwithftanding the huge
number of gods they maintained, were utterly ignorant of the
true God' This is fo evident, that 1 cannot but w©nder at our
author's impudence in denying it, cfpecially, after the teftimo-
nies we have already quoted from him. We have heard already
that the Egyptians and Grecians of old owned no other gods
befides the fun, moon and ftars. And we have heard the
fame of the Sabeans, feveral Americans and inhabitants of
Africa ; and Celar tells us the fame of the Germans — " Deo^
** rum nianero eos folum ducunty quos cernunty & quorum opt-
** bus aperte jiwamur, foltm & vulcanum & lunam ; reliquos ne
^^ jama quidem acceperunt.y* Yea, our author is forced to
make a fair confeffion, and contradict himfelf in the entry of
liis fourth chapter, where fpeaking of the Gentiles and their
worrtiipping of the fun, he delivers himfelf thus: " Incongrv
** uni demuvi exifiimaverant , ut qui cultum ah omnibus jlagitarety

" acul-

* De Rf lig, Gent. pag. 163. + Nichol's Confer. Part 2. pag. 57.

I Oracles of Reafon. pag. 194.

i De Bella Gallico, Lib. 6. — " They reckon in the number of the
*♦' god»: only thofe whom they fee, and by whofe power they are evi-
" dcntly alTifted, that is, the fun, the fire, and the moon. They have
" not iot much as heard of the other gods."

3IO AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xv.

** a culiorihus fins fcfe abfconderet Deus: Sclem igitur Deum
*^ fere omnes Gentileiflatuebant^ non fummum quidem, fed fum^
** mo proximum, ejufqu? pr'.'clarijfimam iconem^ licet alii muu'
" dum totum, tar.quam Deo plenum, fummi numinis imaginem
*^ fpeciofam appiime pr i Je fare contender ent^ •' Here you lee
our author pofitivc, fhcjt they put not the fun in the room of the
One true God : None of them did it ; but we (Ijall hear him
in the very next fentence tell us, that they did difcard the true
(^od, and very abfurdlv put another in his place. *' Certe uti
** olim diElum (fays our author) qui Jolem vice fuinmi Dei toluc'
*' runtf perinde ferere, ac i-li qui ad aulam potentiffimi princi^
** pis accedenies, quern punijin amitiu fplendido indutixm ctT'
*' nerent, regium i a tu'tiun dc'.jerendum exiflimaverant^^'" And
our authorknovvsfi'll wcilthat .it At leus there was an ahar ere6^-
ed to the unknown God; and Pml cxpr Ov tells them, that this
vnknoiun God, was the tiae God' Whom therefore ye ignor-
antly zvoifJiipt him d,;xlare I unto you. What lays our author
to this ? He directly conlrad cts the apoftle, and then makes
him a compliment, ihat is well nigh to nonfenfe. ** Ccete-
*' rum, (fays he) duriuSculi O^^us ignotus AthenienGum ad De-
*' um Juda^orum rcfertur : Ut ita pricra S. S. loca Deum Gen-
** tilium eundum ac communem omnium Deum evincant. Nam.
Deus ille ignotus Athenie!:fi jm alius certe fuit, (ihis is a
plain contradiction to the apollle's affeition) atque ideo puto
ara dcnatus, ne aliquis forfan incuitus apud illoseflet Deus:
** Ut belle lamen hinc inflraendi Gentiles occafionem captarit
apoRolus. Neque dubium mihi efl, quia e libro naturas
** edo'iH Deum fuiiinium lum agnoverint, tum coluerint Gen*

** tiles.

* Ds Reli^r. Gent. yn^^. 20. — " In fine, they reckoned it incon-
« gruous to fnppof:', that God, v.ho required uorlhip from all n-iCn,
'< (houid hide hirrifejf iror.n his worO-iipper?. Therefore almoft all the
" Heathens thought that the fun was a god ; not indeed the fupreme
" one, but next to the fupreme, and his moil illoflrious in-jage ; al-
« though others maiataned that the whole world, as being full of God,
«» bore a diftind ia-prciiion of his image."

+ " Stjrsly, 33 was faid Jong ago, thofe who worfliipped the fun in-
" l^ead of the Supreme f^eity* a>ted in the fame manner as thofe who
" going to the court of a rnoil powerful prince, {hould trdnk that the
" iiril perfon they faw I'plsiididly drelTei \?a= the kino^, and to be re
" vercnced as fiich.'*

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 31 1

** tiles*." Thus w eke qua??? belle f how pleafantly our author
proceeds. He tells us that it is hard to think, though the apof-
tlc cxprefly fays fo, that this vnknown God was the Gcd of the
Jews. But if we will not Hand to our author's word, then he tells
uswhatfome fcriptures he had formerly cited prove; viz.Adlsx.
pa/f??i A tXsKvVi, 28, 29. Rom. i. 19. But we have above ft cwed^
that thefe are not for our author's purpofe. We 1, what then
remains ? Nothing, but only this, " I have no doubt,'* fays he,
** but they knew the true God." But our author's certainty will
not fatisfy another ; and we juft now ihewed, that our author was
not fo fully fure as he pretends to be in this place. But yet
t^ur apoftle, he tells us, took very handfomcly occafion hence
to inftru^l the Gentiles ; that is, if we believe our author, he
took occafion from a falfe fuppofiiion to inflru6l them. But
it is a kindnefs that he ufed any compliment, though a ri-
(Jiculous one. But leaving this, I go on.

4. They among the nations, who owned One Supreme God,
did frequently, if not for moO part, puf feme others in the
room of the true God. Some made the World God. This is
what Balbus the Stoick fets up for with all his might in Cecero's
fecond book de Nat* Deor. throughout. ** x'Vtqui certe nihil
** omnium rerum melius eft, Mundo, nihil praeftabilius, nihil
** palchrius : Nee folum nihil eft, i'cd ne cogitari quidem quic-
** quam melius poteft : Et fi ratione & fapientia nihil eft meii-
** us, neceile eft hs^c inefte in eo, quod optimum cfTe concc-
'* dimus f:" i^nd therefore a little after he concludes the ztwrld

Gcd

* «* It was rather fcmewhat hard to refer the unknown God of the
" Athenians to the God of the Jews, as ihe foriTittr places of lioly
" fcripture prove that the God of the Gentiles was the fame with that
** of the jeus, and the coramcjn God of all men. For this unknown
** God of the Athenians was certainly another one, and 1 fuppofe was
** honoured with an aitar for this reafon, that no god perhaps inighr
<* be wiihoct worfhip among them. Yet how prettily does the apof-
« tie rake an opportunity from hence of inftruding the Gentiles, l-ar
** is it doubtful with me, that the Gentiles, taught by the book of
<< nature, both acknowledged and worlhipped the fupreme Gcd."

•f f* And certainly noiie cf ail things is better than the World, no-
** thing is more exccilenf, nothing is more beautiful; and not ct;iy
^* nothing exifts, but nothing can be imagined that is better than the
«* World. And if nothing is better than Pv.ea fen and Wifdom, thefe
" qualities muit neceffariiy be conceived to belong to that which zc
" acknowledge to be the beft of all things."

312 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xv.

God. Cicero hlmfelf was of the fame mind : For, wben Vel-
leius the Epicurean had heen heard and refuted by Cotta the
academick ; and Epicurus's wild opinions about the gods, had
been fully expofed, which is the fubjedl of the firft book ; Bal-
bus the Stoick propofes and defends the Stoicks' opinion about
the nature, being, and number of the ^ods, and their provi-
dence, and defends it after the be(l manner he can, (where, by
the way, there is not one word of the true, God, but a full
difcovery of the groflTeft i2;norance of him, and the greatefi:
wickednefs and folly in afTsrting a plurality of gods, and part-
ing all the excellencies of the true God among theni). This
makes up the fecond book. In the third book Cotta the aca-
demick, difputes againft, and expofes the Stoicks' opinions as
defended by Balbus ; and in the iaft fentence of the book,
Cicero gives his iiriy-fiTis or cenfure of the v/hole in thefe wortis,
" Hsec cum eff^nt ditla, ita diiceffimus, ut Veileio Cotrae difpu-
" tatio verier, nnihi Balbi ad veritatis fimilitudinem videretur
** eiJe propenfior*." Vellcius the Epicurean favours Cotta,
who difproved the whole opinions about the gods, and put no
better in their place. And Cicero was pleafed with Balbus, who
maintaned the Stoicks' fentiments. What they were we h 've
jufl now noted. And whether Plato, Ariitotle, yea and So-
crates were not of this opinion, is not To very clear. Certain
it. is, that they paid a little too great refpedl to the worlds if
they were not. Let us hear our author. Plato in tini:' o tt U"
gibus dicit i^ mundum drum e/J'e & cerium & ajlra, ^c.\ But
whatever were their fentiments, it is not of fo great confe-
quence to the quelHon under conilderation, to fpend time in
inquiring, fince it is evident that many were of this opinion.
Others tliought that the heaven was God, and this is owned by
Ennius the poet, quoted by our author, in that noted verfe fo
frequently mentioned by Cicero, Afpicc hoc Jublime candens^
quan omnes invocant JovnnX* And there alfo he tells us of
an old infcription found at Rome, Optimum Maximus caliis ^ter^
nus» Thus we fee the heavens dignified withihofe very epithets,
which our author pretends to have been peculiar to the Su-
preme God. And he tells us, that fome are of opinion,

that

* ^< When thofe things had been faicl, we parted, but fo that the

" difcourfe of Cotta feemed to Vclleius to be truer, but that of Bal-

<"• bus feemed to me to approach more nearly to the likenefs of truth."

\ De Rt'Ug. Gent. pag. 59. % I^-^i'^>- V'^Z' 54«

PRINCIPLES OF TH£ MODERN DEISTS. 313

that Pythagoras inclined tins way* and our author leaves it in
floubt. If Arillotle and Plato M^ere not of this mind, that the
heavens were the Supreme God, as we ice fome others were ;
yet they did own heaven for God, and to be vvorflriipped as fuch.
*' Sed non folummodi calum divino honore coUndum decrevcrant
** facerdotes, fed et ipfi pkilofophi cdebriores, adto ut ncn Sta-
*' girita tantumf Jed Emiuus ejus preceptor it a jlatuerint *."
But the mcft prevalent opinion was, that the jun was the one
true and Stupreiue Gnd. — That many, and pernaps moft nations
thought {q, the teftimonies above alleged fuljy prove, and we
have heard cur author confelling it as to fome. I fhall only add
a few ren^iarks more to this purpolc. There is a qoutatlon of
Macrobius, which I find in our author, that is worth noticing,
*' Afiyrii (incj(,it Macr.) quern Deuni funiiiium maximumq ;
" vcnerantur, iVdad nomen dcderunt, ejus nominis interp2:!ra-
" tio fignihcat unus. Hunc ergo ut f)otentiflimum adoiant De-
" um, fed tubjungunt deam nomine Atcigatin ; omnemque po*
" leOatem hiice duobus attribuunt, folem teramque inteliigen-
*' tesf." And our author further acquaints us as to the Peihans,
*' Qijod Perix duo principia ftatuebant, Oromazen fcil. tanquem
** boni fonremt Et Arirnanium, maii. — Inter quos medium &
'* quail arbitruiii y.ofuere folem if." I have in the clofe of our
torn^er chapter, quoted a notable paffage from our author to the
fame purpofe, wherein he tells us, that all the names of the
true God, were afciibed to the fun. Gf the fame opinion m ere
the Phenicians, Britains of old, and their famed Druides, and
perhaps mo/i nations. Yea, £0 deeply did this fix its roots in
\\\z minds of mcrl, that the greaki^ among the Heathen philo-

(^ q fophers

* De Rel, Gent. pag. 29. — " But not orJy were the prieftsof opin-
*' ion that the heaven ought to l>e worfliipped with divine honours,
*' but alfo the mcft famous phil'jfophers, fo that not only the Stag) rite
" but his mafter before him, was ot that opinion.'*

+ Ibid. pag. 24^ — " The AlTyrians, fays Macrobius, gave the name
<* Adadi which fsgnines oner to that Being whom they held to be the
*< fuprenne «nd greateft God. Therefore they adore him as the riiofl
*f powerful God, but thev add to hin^ a goddefs named Atergatis, and
♦* afcribe all power to thefe two, meaning the fun and the earth."

t Ibid. pag. 23. — '< That the Perfians hold two firft principles, to
" wir, Aromazes as the fountain of good, and Arimanius of evd, be-
" twixt whom they phcsd the fun in the iniddle, and as it were an
*« arbifer.'*

314 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xv.

fophers can fcarce be freed from an inclination lliis vay *.
Plato tells us, iiow devout Socrates was in the woilhip of the
fun, and that feveral times he fell into an extafy, while thus
einployed.f Nor are the famous Indian philofophers one whit
more wife. *' Not onlv the Brachinans, but all the Indians,
** veaatid the famed Appolionius (wliom the Heathens compar-
" ed to our blefied Lord, motl bl.ifphemouflv and groundlcfly)
<• worlhipped the fan J." And we have Appollonius's prayer
fo the lun, recorded bv Philollratus in his life, Lib. I. O/umrn^
Jbl, CD meter r arum miitc, quo me projtcturum ejjc cognoJc2u &
concede, precor, vt viros bcnos. a.^^no/lam; improhos vero neq,
a^nofcam, neq ; agnofcar ah iiiis§. Yea after the light or the
glorious gofpel had cleared the philofopber's eyes, and made them
aa-»amed of mucii of their religion, yet even the Platon-ck phi-
io.ophcrs coiild not quit the thoughts of the fun's being God. H'

But not only did fome look on the fun as the Supreme God ;
but (if we mav believe Hornbeck, who was at great pains to un-
deifbnd the religions of theworld, and paiticulaiiy of /imerica)
feveral nations in America, particularly the inhabit^mts of New-
France, and they who inhabit about thd river Sag<^dabcc, wor-
(iiip piincipaliy the devil or a malignant fpirit-**

Thus v/c have fully dcmonftratcd what we undertook, and
hereby quite froib'd the whole (torv of an univerl^i religion:
And our author has been fo unhappv, as to lay to our hands
many of the arsumeras, whereby we have difproved his own po-
f^tion. Thisftcn beini- one:; g.-ined, ve fhall be more brief
in the confideration of the rcmaininp: articles : For they all fall
with this, if there is a miO.ike as to this, there can remain
nothing fincere in rr-lioion. If the true God is not known, he
cann<jt\e wot ;h>ppfiJ^ ^vd rewards and pinufJmentsc3n not be
r;^Mtfi/ from him; nor can we be fenfiblc of, or fori y tor any

offence

« This is fully proven by Dr. Owen, Hornbeck and others, in their
books formerly referred lo.

+ SeeOwei'vs'lheolog.«Lib. 3. Cap. 4. pag. 182.

J Jlornbeck pag. 31. '

f « O fuprrrae fun, fend n^e to that piut of the world, to which
<r you know J am going, ar.cl gr.nt, 1 pray, that I n^.av know good
<«'men, but that i may neither kucvv bad man, nor be known by them.

II Owen ubi fupra. Lib. 3. Cap.' 5. pag. 194.

*** Horubeck de Conver. Gcntll. Lib. {.Cap. 9* pag. 70, 71.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 315

offence done 5s:ain(i him. So that wc might flop here, as hav-
ing ruined whollv thaf caiife our author uadertypk Xo dst'end:
But we Ihall confider the reft ^iia*

ARTICLE II.

li was not univerfally agreed that ike One True God is to be
luo'jktppjd-

HOW could they agree as to the worftiipping him whorfi
they did know to he ? If it would not frighten the perlbns con-
cerned, I might here pertinently afk them the queition the a-
poftle puts, Rom. x. 14. Hozu fhalT they call on him, in whom
they have not believed ' And how jhall they believe in him^ of
whotn they have not heard?

And farther, even they who owned one fupreme God, ma-
ny of them entertained fuch notions of him, as made him un-
worthy of any worHiio. He tells us that many of them locked
him up in heaven, denying his providence ; and one would
almoft think our author had been of their opinion, while he
tells us, *• Rede di&u},i efl oh?n, quod dternum beatu?nque ejl nee
** negotii quicquam habere y ne: exhiberi alteri* *** But whatever
our author's thoughts were, it is well known, that this opinion
prevailed very far, and obtained amoiifjO many, if not moll na-
tions, who owned one fuprems God befrJes the fun. And they
were further of opinion, that God had committed the whole man-
agement of the world to deputies. Our author iriforms us, (hat
the ancient Heathens divided ihdr ^ods iniofuper-celt/iial, ce-
leflial, Tind ftjb~celeflial\; and he tells us, that the chief god, and
his companions the fuper-celeftial gods, have not any fuch
concernment in, or regard to the things that are tranfa^ied in
this world, as to m.ake them take any notice of them ; and
that the Supreme God has withdrav^^n himielf and the fuper-
cel'eftial gods from the view of mortals, as being of too fub-
lime a nature to be kno.vn by them : and that he lias deputed
the fun, moon, and ftars to infpeCt the world, as the on'y gods
Vviio can be enjoyed by men. ** Deuai fuiiirfium vero feiplum

fuper-

* Da Relig. Gent. pag. 174.— " It was well iWid. of dd. that a being
« that is eternal raid happy, neither has aoy trouDie ia itfslf, nor gives
" any trouble to anoihtrr.'*

' Ibid, pag. 1 TO.

3i6 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xv.

'* fupercceleflefq ; Dcos a confpef^u mortallum rcmovilTe, quod
'* fubliniis adeo effent naturae, ul nulla eos acies latis portinge-
*' ret, ejus loco non in confpectum lolum, fed in fruitlonem
** quandam produxilTe deos illos cuelefies, qui a nobis fol, lu-
** ria, cce'um, &c. vocantar*." And the Indian Brachmins icem
indeed to be of the lame mind, as we know the xvhole followers
of Epicurus weref . Yea, the inhabitants of Calecut, a kinp;-
dom in the Eail-Indies, are fo abfurd as to imagine that the de-
vil is God's deputy, to whom tlie government of the world is
comnvitted. And hence they worflnip the devil f.rincipaily,
(as likewile do the kingdoms of Decum and Narfinga) and
'* their king has in his oratory the image of the devil with
** a crown on his head, fo very frightful, that the moft relb-
*' lute tremble at the fight of it : the wail is all painted
** with leiTer devils ; and in each corner (lands one of brafs,
** fo well done, that it feems all in ilamesl." Now if fuch
notions are entertained of God, it is no wonder though he be'
by many thought not worth liie worfliipping. The confequen-
ces of thofe apprehenhons I cannot better exprefs, than Cicero
has done in the very beginning of his hrft book ck Nat. Deo^
rum- ** Sunt enim philofophi, & tuerunt, qui oninino nul-
** lam habere cenferent humanarum rerum procurationem deos:
Qj-iorum fi vera fententia efl, qua^ poteft eiTe pietas ? Qu^e '
fan'flitas? Q^uoe rcligio ? ft deii neque pofi'unt nos juvare,
nee volunt, nee curant omnino, nee quid agamus animad-
vertant ; nee efi: quod ab his ad hominum vjtam permanare
poffit: Q_uod efl, quod ullos diis imrnortalibus cuitus, honc-
rcs, preces adhibearaus J?" And much more to the fame

purpcfe*

* De Reli-;, Gent- pa?. 171.— « But that the fupreme God had
" witudr<ivvn iiimfelf and the other fuper-celf:rtiai gods from the \vi\\i
" of niortalb, bt^caufe they were of fo fubliire a nature thai no human
" eye could fumciently leach them; but that lie had fei up in his place,
" not only for our knowledge, bat fruition, thofe celeiiiai godb, which
" are called hy us the fun, the moon, the heaven, <ic."

+ Hornbcck, pa^-. 40.

:J: See Caleatti in Great. Gcograph. Dtifiicn,

\ " F. r tliere are and have been phiiofcpbers, who think th t the
** i?<>ds tai^e no care at all of human affairs, and if tiie>r opinion be
** trde, what piety can there be r or what fan«^l:Iiy ? u-hat reltgi.m ?
♦< if the gods neither can, nor will help v.s, nor obferve what we do;
" nor is there ar-v thing that can come from them into human life.
" What reafon is there then, why we fhould oiFer any wor{h;p, ho»
<* noun or prayer^ to the iiUinortai gods r"

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 317

purpofe. Thoiigh he fpeaks of a plurality of gods, yet what
he Lys holdsUueas to the cafe In hand : for if we entertain,
or if the Gentiles did entertain, as we fee fome of iheni did,
fuch notions of iheir fupretne God, as he here foeaks of, the
farne conftciuences mud follow; and it is not credible that any,
who thought fo, could judge the fupreme God worthy of wor-
fiiip. And indeed we hnd them no way concerned about It.

In fine, not a few of tlie wifer, who entertained the moft
jufl thoughts of God of any, yet being in the dark as to the
way of worihipping God, have declared agalnO any worflnp, at
jeail In practice, till it ihouid by himfelf be condefcended on.
Thus it is as to the wifer fort among the Chinefe — *' De Deo
** eoque colendo non funt foliciti. Unum quidcm agnofcunt
** fummum numen, a quo omnia confervarl & regi credunt :
<' Sed, quia quomodo coli velit, ignorare fe profitentur ; fa-
** tius autumant cultum ejus omittcre, quam In eo defignaiido
*' errare*." And perhaps the beft philofophers In other na-
tions were not of a different mind. Thus we fee how far they
were from being agreed ^bout this article.

ARTICLE III.

The Gentile World were not agreed in judging that Virtue and
Piety are the principal parts of tke zvorfliip of God,

HOW it fliould come Into our author's head to think that
they were agreed, is a little ftrange, confidering how little is to
be found among their writers that looks this way. But I fup-
pofe the cafe was this, he had concluded that they were agreed
about the king of one true God, and to make his religion com-
plete he behoved to have them fome way agreed aboot his wcr-
fhip too. But he found them endlefsly divided about their fo-
lemn worfnip, and none of it dlre£\ed to the one true God, but
all exprefsiy aimed at other things: wherefore there was no
other thing left that could be to his purpofe; and therefore he

finding

* Hornbeck ubi fupra, pag. 47.—" They have no anxiety nbouc
«* God or his vvorrriip, '1 hey acknowledge indeed one Supreme Dei-
" ty, by whom they think that all things are preferved and governed ;
♦< but as they profefs that they do not know in what manner he chafes
** to be worfhipped, they think it better to let alone his worfnip ai-
" together, than to err in determining it."

3iS AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xv.

finding that there was fomewhat that all the world agreed in,
pa\'lng foinc refpc^t to, a{ leail, in words, under the name of
virtue ; he wonld reeds appropriate tliis (o the Uue God for his
worPnip, though he his no warrant from the Gentiles to do (o»
An\ truly after all, if this was the worihip of the true God, or
deligned as fuch, whatever agreement ttiere might be in opiniori
about the worihip of the one true God. 1 think there was none
in praBicEj if not in a tot^l nesiledl of it: For how few were
there, who can have the ieal pretence to challenge that name
aoiongft all thofe, whofe names have been tranfmitted to us!
How true was the poet Juvenal's obfervation,

Rari quippe bovi) nuntero 'vix fu7it tot id em. quot
^1 h^barum portce, di'viiis Tel ojiia Nili *,

But to leave this, and come to the point in hand fomewhat more
clofely,

I. It is evident that the world was very far from being ar
greed, that there is cne God : Far more were they divided about
the acknowledgment of the true God, and whom they ihould
own as fuc'i. It was therefore utterly impoflible th^t they
fiiould condefcend on this, as a principal part of the worfhip of
God; whom they did not know to have any being.

2, So far were they from looking on virtue as the principal part,
of the worihip of the gods, whom they owned, that the worfhip
of many of their goJs, was thought to conhft in things that were
crofs to the plained dictates of nature's light. Our author ac-
quaints us frequently with the obfcenities, the cruelties, and
other extravagancies of their worihip. The obfcenities are too
fuliome to be repeated. The furious extravagancie.i, religious,
or rather fuperliitious fury and niadnefs ufed in the woriTiip of
Bacchus, are known to efery one. And for their cruelty,
who knows not that human facrifices were aimoU uni^'erfally
uied ? Some offered captives, Icme Oifcred Orans^ers, fome fa-
cnficed their deareit reianonsand children, and that in the mofl
cruel manner f ,

3. We n'?ed go tio fLirther than our author's book, to learn,
that mcil nations were io far from locking co virtue as any part

of

" " For good men are rare, and fcarcely a.% nDmerous as the gafes
" of Thebes, or the mouihs of the fcebis Nil-.*."

+ See this^ fully }>roven in the lenrncd and excellent Dr. Owen'e
treatiie de Jujutici '-oiiidicatricei from pag. 66 to 100, by auriientic
teihmouics, widi fuch remarks as may be worth the reading.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERxN DEISTS. 319

of the ivcrflhip due to any of thofe gods they owned, that (hev
placed it wholly in fuch other things, as our author, aiTiongil:
others, has given us a large account of.

4. They, who were mod zealous for virtue, were very far
from looking on it as a part of the worlhip of God, or direiSling
it to his glory. I believe our author, were he alive, for all
his reading would find it difficult to find one fair tefiiinony to
this purpole« They looked not on themfe'ves as debtors to
God for their virtue. Hence Cotta, after he has acknowledged
that we are indebted to God for our riches and eternal enjoy-
ments, adds; ** Virtutem autcm nemo unquam acceptam Deo
** retulit, nimirum re6fe: Propter viitutem enim lap.dantur, &
** in virtute re6\e gloriamur; quod non contingeret, h id donum
** a Deo haberemus." Hence a little after, he adds, ** Nam quis
** quod bonus vir eiTet, gratias dils egit unquam*!" And much
more 'to the fame purpofe. They thought that their virtue
made them equal to their gods. " Hoc eft quod philofophia mi-
** hi proroittit, ut me parem Deo faciat.f" Yea not only fo, but
they pretended their virtues placed them above their gods. ** Eft
** aliquid, quo fapier.s antccedat deufi), ille naturae beneficio,
** non fuo,fapienseni.." And again," Deus non vincit fapientem
*' felicitate, ctiarr.fi vincit jetate : Non enim efl virtus major,
** quae ior;gicr§." Picnce they will not have us fo much as to
pray to God, cither as to virtue or felicity. It is a mean thincr
to weary the gods. '* Qiizci- veils opus eft? Jatio fdicem\\S'
And much more to the fame purpofe,

ARTICLE

* Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. mihi. 187. Lib. 3. — <i For nobcdv ev^r
" ccnfcfTcd that he owed hit virtue to God, for we are juilly praifed
« on accccnt of our virrue, and we juilly boafl of it, which would not
<' be the cafe if we had our virtue as a gift frcm God. . . . Nor did
*< any body ever give thanks to the gods becaufe he was a good a^an/'

t Seneca, Epiil. 48 — « This it what pbilofophy proiLJfes n.e, to
" make rpe equal to God.''

X Idem, Epift. 55. — " There is fomething in which a whe man
" excels God, that die forraer is wife by his osvn benefit, but the lat-
** ter by that of nature."

II Kplu. 73. — "God does not exceed awife man in happinef, though
'* he exceeds hira in age, for virtue is not the greater in pioporticn as
«' it is oWtT,"

§ EDiil. Si' — " Wliat need has he of prayers v. ho is acln^llv h.an-

AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xv,

ARTICLE IV.

It did not tmiv^rfally ol?tain, that repentance is ii fujficient tx-
piatation ; or, thai we mujt reptrA. Jcr o^enccs dent againfi
the true God,

OUR author has acknowlegei, that there is rarely ment'on
cf this aa!ong(^ the ancients ; aad we have already, by qnota-
tions froti] him, cleared that the ancient Keatbeos did no; tlniik
it a fufficient expiation, and indeed that it was of no great con-
fideratioo among tliein, is lufhcicntly evident froin their not
taking any notice of it, even when the faireft occasions prefent
themfelves. And finally, there can be nothing more certain,
than that their repentance could not aim at the offence done to
the true God, of whom many of them were utterly ignorant. ^
But what has been faid is fufiicient to fl-iew that it did not uni-
verfaJIy obtain in any fenl'e, that can turn to any account
to tiie Deilts.

A R T I C L E V.

It ZL'dS not univcrf ally agreed, that tlure are rezoards and pun'
ijjniients after this life*

I. HOWEVER many there were that maintained the im-
mortality of the fouls of men, it is certain, that there were very
many dilTentienis, who were of a dil^Ferent mind, and that of
all forts of people.

The famed lects arnone; the Inlians, which they call Scha.er-
waecha Pafenda and IJchctieat if we may bsiieve Hornbeck in
his account of ihem, all deny a future iiate *•

Nor are wife Chir.efe, at leafi: manv of them, of a different
rr/md. They are divided in rl -re fe<^\3. The iiift feci cf their
philofophers are the followers of the famed Confucius^; their
morals are as refined as perhaps thcfe of the moft polite parts of
the v/orld, if not more. But ss to the foul, thev feem to make
it a part of God, which at death returns to that firrt Principle,
whence it was broke o!^-'. Let as hear PoHevinus's account of
them. As to this matter he favs, they riiaintain, *' Kominis

** cor

* Hornbeck, pag, 3 5, ubi fuira.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS, 321

*' cor efle unum & eandem rem cum illo primo rerum princi-
** pio; cumque homo rr.oritur, cor perire prorfus & abfumi,
** i'uperetTe tamen ex eo primum principlum, quod vitam ante
** conferebat." And fuither, they maintan, *' P*^^^ hominem
** in hac vita fummam principii cognofcendi perfe6tIonem ad-
** ipifci, & meditando pervenire ad maximam vitae tranquii-
** litatem, & hoc cile ruiT7mum bonum, quod donee obtineat,
** continuo motu agatur, & de inferno uno in alium conjiciatur,
*' ufqae dum contemplando & meditando ad fafiigium perven-
** erit tranquiliitatis, qucz in principio illo primo eft*." Thefe
are the apprehenfions of their beft moralifts.

But there are other two feds, that plainly declare againft a
future ftate, are for the immortality of the foul, and have no
prorpe6l beyond timef.

Of this fame opinion were not only fingle perfons, but ma-
ny fetSls of the ancient philofophers, whom Cicero mentions,
and concludes his account of them thus — ** His fententiis om-
*' nibus nihil pofl mortem pertinere ad quemquam poteft : Pari-
** ter enim cum vita fenfus amittitur |." And a little after,
fpeaking of the oppofition made to Plato's opinion about the
immortality of the foul, he fays, " Sed plurimi contra (Pla-
** tonis fcil. fcntentiam) nituntur, animofq ; quafi capite dam-
** nates morte mulclant." And fome palfages after, fpeaking
of the fame opinion, he fays, ** Caterv^ veniunt contradicen-
** tium, non folum Epicureorum, quos equidem non defpicio,
** fed nefcio quomodo dodifiimus quifque contemnit. Acerri-
** me autem deliciae meae dico Archias, contra banc immor-
** lalitatem differuit : Is enim tres libros fcripfit, qui Lelhiaci

R r ** vocantur

* Hornbeck, pag. 47, 48.— <« That the heart of man is one and the
<* fame thing with that firft Principle of things, and that when a man
« dies, his heart quite peiilhes and is confumed, yet that the firll Prin-
•* ciple of it remains, which formerly gave him life. . . . That
»< a man may in this life attain to the higheft perfeiflion of the principle
" of knowledge, and arrive by meditation to the grcateft tranquillity
«« of life, and that until he obtain this, he is agitated by a perpetual
'* motion, and thrown from one hell into a another, till by contempla-
" tion and meditation he arrive at the furamit of tranquiUity which is
«< in that firil Principle."

+ Ibid, pag. 4?, 49.

X Cicero, Tufc. Qncft. i. pag. 329. — " From all thefe opinions,
*' nothing after death can be interfiling to any one, for fenfition is loifc
f* together with life.**

322 AN IxVQTJlRY INTO THE chap.xv,

*' vocantur, quod MeJylenis fermo habetur : In qulbus vult ciH-
" cere anirr.os efTs mortalcs : Stoici autem ufuram nobis* tan-
'* quam cornicibus: D'lu manfuros aiunt animoSj leniper ne-
** ^ant*."

Nor were they otheru'ife minded, many of them In Greece.
When Socrates vents his opinion of the in;mortciiify of the
foul that day before he died, Cebes, one of his difciples, who is
the conferrer, or one ot thern at leaft that m.iintains the dif-
courfe with him, addrelTes him in thefe words : *' Socrates, I
** iubfcrlbe to the truth of iiU you hive faid. There is only
** one thing that men look upon as incredible, viz. what you
** advanced of the foul : for alniolt every body fancies, that
** when the foul parts from the body it is no more, it dies along
** with it ; in the very minute of parting it evarilfiies like a
** vapour or fmoke, v.hich flics oit and oiiperfes, and l:as no
" exigence f."

Yea, Pliny, Strabo, and many otliers, declare againft the
immortality of the foul ; nay, Pliny en fct purpole difputes'
againR it .j:.

And the poets go the fame w^y. It v ere eafy to multiply
proofs of this from them. S:rncca fpcaks the mind of many of
them, t'iiough perhaps not his own. Traj.^ Troa, A* I.
Poji mortem 7zihil ef, ipfaque jnors vAhih
Velocis fpatii meia ?ionjiJJiwa,
^Uceris nzio jace.-'s poJi obitum loco;

^uo von mala jacent, Et
Tern pus nos avid urn de-vorat ^ chaos ^
Mors i'idividua cfj; voxio corporiy

Nee paycc'?js {>7:if;ia }l. Pcrfius

* *< Crowds of nppofers come agninil m?, not only of the Epic:]-
«< reans, whom indeed I do n<n defpife, but 1 knew roE how
f' every molt lenrned man defpifes them. For my darling, I n ean
*'• Archais, has difptjred rerv c;)gtrr!y againft this immortality. He
*« u r'Ue three btn^k-^, which Jire called Lefbian, hecaufe the dif-
<* coirfe is held at rviytelene, in which he endcp.vcured to prove that
<' the fouls of men are mc>rtaL Bur the btoicks only give them a long
*' life like the crows, — fh<v fny that foulb will live a long time, but
" ihev d ?ny that thev w\\\ Hve forever."

+ Plato's Phedc?: done into Engllfli from M. Di-cier's Tranf. vol- 2.
pag. 100.

if uweni Tlie:.log. Lib i. C. pag. 174.

II " There is nothing after death, and death itfclf is nothing, being
<f Oijly the hi'.t fta^e of oar fvvift courfe. Do you alk in what p'acc

" you

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 323

Perfms and all the pccts made ufe of this ss an encourage-
ment to give way to themlelves, in whatever Juft prompted
(hem to.

Indulge genioj carpamus dzilcia ; niflriim eft
^:cd 'z-i-jusj cinist ^ manesy ^ fahula fes*.

If it be faid that this is an irony, and that he M-as not in ear-
neP:, it is eafy to multiply quotations to this purpcfe from Ho-
race, Catullus, and m.cft of the poets, which are not capable of
any fuch conflrud^ion. But I forbear.

And although Cicero was for the irr.mortality of the foul ;
yet in his fird book of Tup.ulan Qjitftions^ he plainly derides
the whole bulinefs of rewards and punirnm.cnts after this life ;
as anyone who will attentively perufe it may Ice. I forbear
to tranfcribe the pailige ; becaufe I behoved to tranfcribe much
to fnew the tendency of the difcourfe. He plainly tells us, that
he could be eloquent, if he had a mind to fpeak againfl thole
things; Dijhtus efc pojfdm, fi contra ifla dicer cm j". The
cafe is plainly this : Th^t perion to whom he difcourfes looks
on death as an evil. Cicero tells him that perhaps it is be-
caufe he fears thcfe punilluTients after this life, which the vul-
gar believed ; and after he has tartly ridiculed them, he con-
cludes, That had he a mind, he could enlarge againft thofe
things, and plainly expofc the whole tradition.

But bscau'e lom.e talk fo much of Plato, Socrates, Cicero,
and we get fo many quotations from them about the immortality
of the foul and a future Oa^e ; 1 ihali here reprefent their own
opinion fooiewhat more fully.

As for Socrates, he has not M'rit any thing that is come to our
hands: all the accounts we have of him are from Plato, Xeno-
phen and others, but efpecially Plato his Icho'ar, who was
with him at his death : From him then we (hall learn at once,
what both his maker's opinion and his own v/ere in this matter.

When

*< you are to lie after your death, in which evils do not I'e, and greedy
''time and chance devours us? Deaih is a divider, which hurts ths
«* body and does not fpare the foul."

* '"'Indulge your inclination, let us enjoy pleafures; this fpan of life
" thzt we enjoy is ours, you will foon become i-flies, a {hade and a
» fable."

t Tufcul. Quell. Lib, i. a little from the beginning, pag. ir.ihi 3? 2.

324 AN INQ^UIRY |INTO TFIE chap. xv.

When Socrates is inaking bis apology before bis judges, he

tells them, " That to fear death, is nothing elfe, but to be-

*' lieve one's felf to be wife, v/hen they are not ; and to fancy

** that they know what ihey do not know. In ciFed, no body

** knows death ; no body can telJ, but it may be the treateft

'* benefit of mankind ; and yet men are afraid of it, as if they

** knew certainly that it was the greatefl: of evils*." And a

Jittle after fpeaking of death, *' What ! (hould I be afraid of the

** punilhment adjudged by Melitus, a punifliment that I can-

** not pofitiveiy fay whether it is good or evil f ?" And thus he

concludes his apology- ** But now, it is true we (hor<ld all

** retire to our reipec^ive offices, you to live, and I to die.

** But whetlier you or I are going upon the better expedition,

*' it is known to none, but God alone .J '

Again, in that famed difcourfe on this fubje6i, before his
death, after he has produced all the arguments he can for (he
inimortality of the foul, he tells us pretty plainly, how things
f^ocd with him. ** Convincing the audience of what 1 ad-
** vance, is not oniy my aim ; indeed I Ihall be infinitely glad
" that it come to pafs ; but my chief fcope is to perfuade my-
** felf of the truth of thefe things ; for I argue thus, my dear
** Phedon, and you will find that this way of arguing is highly
** ufeful, (very true to folk that are not certain and can do no"
** better, and only to thei'e). If my propofitions prove true,
** it is well done to believe them, and if after my death they
** be found falfe, I will reap that advantage in this life, that
** 1 have been Icfs afflicted by the evils which commonly ac-
" company it. But I fhall not remain long under this igno-
'* ranee §." And when he is near his clofe, and juft about
(o take the poifon, or a little before, having reprefented his
thoughts about rewards and punithmcnts after (his life, which
are little better than thofe of the poets, he concludes his ac-
count in thefe words; ** No jTian of fenfe can pretend to af-
** furc you, that all thefe things are jui\ as you have heard.
'* But all thinking men will be pofitive, that the ftate of the
** foul, and the place of its abode, is abfolutely fuch as I
*' reprefent it to be, or at leafl very near it," — provided the
foul be ini mortal.
More might be alleged to the fame purpofe ; but this is fuf-

ficient

* Dacier's Plato, Vol. 2. pag. 2;"^. Socrates' Apology,
■f ^bid. pag. 40. ;- jbid. pag. 47.

§ Plato's Fhedon pag. ijj, 136.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 325

ficlent to let us fee how wavering Plato and his mafter Socra-
tes were. They talk confidently Ibmetimes ; but prefently t}7ey
fink aaain. Let us next fee what Cicero's mind was. He
treats ihls fubjeCl on fet pu.rpofe, in his firfi book of Tnfculan
Quefiions^ which is wholly fpent on this fubje6t. He under-
takes to frew and prove againft the perfon whom he inflru6is, that
death is 7wt evil, whether we are diflolved quite or not : and
having, as he fancies, proven that death is not an evil, he
proceeds and gives us this account of his undertaking^-** I
** (hall teach you, (fpeaking of death) if I can, /t pqji??:, that
** it iiot only not evil, hui good *." But a little after he tells
us cbarlv what we may expe<?i: from him, when his heaver ex-
horts him to go on ; fays he, Geram tibi morem, & ea qua
vis, ut poteroi explicabo : Nee tamen quafi Pythiiis Apol/o,
certa ut Jiiit, zd fixa qua: dixero : Sed ut homvnculus unus t
maltis prohahtlia conje.Burd fequens^ ultra enim quo progrediar,
quam ut verifimilia videam, non habeo : Certa dicait ii qui £3
percipi ea pojfe dicunty & ft fapientcs ej[e projitentur \. And
fpeaking about this opinion, his auditor tells him, how pleafant
this is to him. It will be a little pleafant to hear them fpeak.
A* Me vero deleSat: Idque primu??? ita ejfe fJciL ardmos effe
immortales :) Deinde etiamfi non fit, mihitainenperfuaderi vdim»
M, Quid tibi ergo opera noflrd opus e/i? Nam eloquentid Pla-
tonem fuperare pojfumus? Evolve diligenter ejus turn libriivi^
qui eji de animo : Amplius quod de/idcres n'hil erit. A- Feci
mthercule ^ quidan jd^pius : Sed nefcio quomodo, dum lego, af-
fentior : Cum pojui librum, & mecum ipfe de immortalitate ani-
niorum ccepi cogitare, affentio omnis ilia tiabitur %- After he
has it=iilru6\ed his hearer, he profoiTes his refolution to (land by

this
* Pag. 325.

+ Pag. 526. — «y^, I will obey you, and explain thefe things that you
« wi(h, as I fhall be able. Yet what I ara to fay will not be certain
« and fixed like the oracles of the Pythian Appoilo, but 1 will proceed
" as one poor man of the many, following probabilities by conjecture,
« for I have no where that 1 can go further than I fee probability.
" Thofe will i-:;.-)^ certain things who fay that certainty can be attained,
« and who profefs to be wife men."

X Pag, 329.— "^y. Bjt it pleafes me, and this firfl, that fo is the cafe,
« (to wit, that the fouls of men are immortal) and then although it
« (hould not be fo, yet I wiih to be perfuaded of it, M. What need
" have you then of our fervice ? Can we excel Plato in eloquence?
« Turnover diligently that book of his, which treats of the foul, yea

" will

326 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap.

XV

this opinion, but gets a caution from his inflruftcr, that lets us
iee liow things Rand. //. Nemo me de immortalitate. depdkt.
M, anlvvers, Laudo id quidein^ et Ji nihil nimis oporttt conftdat ;
Movcmur enim /Icpc aliqiio acute condufo : Labamus miitamuf-
cjye ftnrentiam clariorihus etiam in rebus: In his enim ejl ahqua
ohfcuritas*. And If ye would know what his reaibn was for
inriiting fo long on the proof of this, he tells us near the clofe,
't hat it was to bimirn the contrary fufpicion, which was trou-
Mefome. Much more might be adduced, but what has been
fald fuhSciently derDonOrates how fluctuating and uncertain the
beR of them were, in reference to this importaut point.

if any fhall fay, tlKit though thefe great men upon feme oc^
crJions, expreiTed themfelves with fonie hefiratlon, and did infi-
nuate fomc fufpicion that the oppofite part of the quefiion might
be true, yet upon other occafions they are pofitive, and that this
is as good an evidence oftheirbeing firmly perfuaded, as the o-
thercxprefTions are of iheir hefitation. lanfwer, the confequence
is naught. A ft!«ming pofvivenefs upon fome occaiions, may
be the refuh of the joint influence of a Itrong defire, that the
thing (hould be true, and fome philofopbical quirk urged for
its fupport: For as Cicero well obferves in the words laft quo-
ted, Moveinur fipe aliquo acute condufo; and this efpecially
holds true, where there is a flrong inclination to believe the-
thing, as being of obvious advantage to us. Now this may
be, where there Is no certainty or firm perfuafion. I readily
own that thcfe great men favoured the immortality of the i'oul :
Bat I pofitively deny, that they received it with that firmnefs
of ailent, that is not only due, but unavoidable, to truths which
carry their own evidence along with them. And 1 moreover
a\er, that the Dcifls, in q-uOtlng fome of thefe affertions from
th'^m, wherein they feeni pohtive, fuppreffing other exprcffions,
wherein they difcover a hefitation, da but abufe the reader's
credulity ; and give neither a full nor fair account of the judg-
ment of thefe men. CHAP

« will Gcfire nothing more on the fubje(^. J. Indeed I have done To,
f< and cfrencr than once, but 1 knov/ not how it is, I alTent as long as
<' I am readii^^;, but when I have b.id down the book and begin to
t« think '.vith mvfclfofthe immortality of fouU, all that affent va.iliht-s."
* ♦*]Sjone fhail drive rne from my bclict' of imn^ortalirv. M. I
<• commend that indeed, ahhougli we ought not to be too fure of a^y
f thing, for we arc often determined by foraeihing that is acutely con-
'»' chKiei.i , yet auerwards wc give way and change our opinions even
" in thi :^^.. that are dearer, for there is fome obrcuiiiy iw ihofe tuio^ii "

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 327

CHAP. XVI.

Wbnein fome. general conjiderations are laid do:vnfvr proving
that many cf the heji things, zuhich are to be met ziitk in the
Heathens f were not the difcoveries of Nature s Light , hut
cams J ram Tradition*

NOTWITHSTANDING the grofs ignorance, which over-
fpread the Heathen world, was very great ; yet it can-
not be denied that there are very many furprifing hints of truth
to be found, in many of their writings, in reference even to
matters of religion.

The DeiQs take up whatever tli^y meet with of this fort, and
confidently give it out, That all this they difcovered by the
mere light of nature.

There are who, on the other hand, will fcarce allow them
to have made any of thofe difcoveries by the light of nature;
but afcribe whatever hints of truth are to be met with, to tradi-
tion* This is faid to be the opinion of Eufebius and Scaliger,
by Dr. O^ven *. And it is of late maintained by Mr, Nicclh,
the ingenious author of the Conference with a Iheifi^, For
which Mr. Becconfal, the author of a late treatife concerning
the Lazo of Nature^ is much difpleafed with him, and takes
him to tafk %»

I defign not to mal^e myfelf a party in this debate, I think
that there is fom.ewhat cf truth on both fides : But if either
think to carry the matter to the utmoQ, I think alfo there will
he miilakes on both hands. It is too much to fay that they
discovered nothing in reference to religion by the mere light of
nat;ire: And on the other hand it favours of grofs ignorance
to fay that all we meet with in the v/ritings of the ancient fager,
was difcovered by the light of nature. Nothing is more evident,
than that many things have been banded from nation to nation,
and from age to age, by tradition. This no modeft man will
or can deny ; it has been fo clearly m^de out by many.

V/hat

* Thcol. Lib. I. C. Z. Parag. 4.

f Confer. Part 2. pag. 32, 35, &c.

:; Beccon. of the Law of Nature, C. 4. '^?.-^. 54, 55. &;.

323 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xvi.

What I affert, and {Vjall attempt to prove, is, ** That ma-
nv of the moft notable things that we meet with in the Hea-
then writers, in matters of religion, are nOt to be looked on as
difcovertes made by the light of nature ; but as truths, where-
of they were informed by tradition. And moreover, that when
we find them alTerting fome of thofe truths, which to us who
enjoy the fcripturcs, and by the fcriptures have our reafon im-
proven, appear to have a foundation in reafon, we are not there-
fore to conclude, th^t reafon led them to thofe truths; but ra-
ther, that in many cafes they had even thefe from tradition,''*

In proving this point, I ftiall not proceed by fingle inibn-
ces, but (hall lay down thefe general confiderations, which at
once clear the truth of oar affertion, and difcover whence thefe
traditions might com3, and how eafily they might be conveyed
to them. Particular inftances may be had in great abundance
from thofe who have, of fet purpofe, largely iaiiiled on th^is
fubject. Amongfl others, Huetius, in his D^imonjlratio Evan-
gdica, has largely diicourfed of particular inftances of this na-
ture. I think the following obfervations taken together and
duly confidered, will put our allertion beyond quelHon with
the fober and judicious.

1. It is moft certain, that the Jews, however in other regards
inconfiderable, which makes it dill the more obfervable, had
more fall, clear, and certain knowledge of the true God, re-
ligion, and matters of worlhip, than all the world befides. If
th^ D^^iQs pleale to controvert this propofilion, we thai I debate
it with them when they pleafe. And I dare be bold to^ fay,
that 1 Ihall prove, that there is more true and rational dlviriity in
one QiiX.'ci^ hooks of Mofts", than they ihall be able to find in
all the Heathen zuriters, when they put all that has been faid
by all of them together.

2. Their neighbours, and more efpecially the Egyptians,
had many fair occafions of obtaining acquaintance with their
opinions and prac\lces in matters of relgion. Several p-rlons
at diflant times, went out from the church and fettled i i dif-
tant nations, llbmael went out from Abraham's family, and
Efau from that of Ifaac. Now it cannot be fuppofed, how
wicked foever thefe perfons were, but they would carry out
with them ibme (rue notions, opinions and praCiices, in maliers
of religion. Nor can it reafonably be denied, that they found-
ed then- new government on fome of thefe notices, thout'h yari-
ouav blended and mixt with corrupt additions and alterations,

^ both

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 329

hotU in matters of opir.ion and practice. And it is evident, that
thci^ hints, or remainders of truth, in n>atters of opinion and
practice, as they were mixt with thefe corruptions, would ob-
tain a general and great refpecSt, as being found ufeful for
maintaining order in focieties, as being delivered to them by
the iirft founders of their nations, as being commended by their
pra6tice, and perhaps eilabiiined by laws and conRitutions.
Whence it is not pofiibly to be fuppofed that thefe notices or
praclices would in an age, or a few ages wear out.

Again, it is particularly obfervable in this cafe, that the
church was, for a long tra6i of time, in a wandering and un-
fettled ftate ; which obliged them to more of intimacy with the
nations that lay near them, than afterwards was neceOary , when
they fettled in a land by themifelves apart, and were, by divine
conl^itutions, barred from that familiarity.

Moreover, as to th.e Egytians, they had much occafion of
being particularly acquainted with the Jews' opinions and prac-
tices in the matters of God. The Ifraelitcs dwelt among them
(befides what occafional converfe they had before) about 217
years together. The correfpondence was again renewed in So-
lomon's time, by bis matching with the king* of Egypt's daugh-
ter. Jeremiah, and a great company with him, ftaid a conii-
derable tim.e in Egypt, and prophefied there to the Jews, who
had at that time no feparate dwellings, and prophefied concern-
ing Egypt ; which, together with the reputation he had got at
Jerufalem, by his predictions that were remarkably verified,
the notice taken of him by thp king of Babylon, and the con-
tefls he had with thofe of his own nation, could not but make
him much regarded.

It is further confiderable, that there were many things, which
may reafonably be fuppofed to excite an uncommon curiofity in
the Egyptians, to unierRand the religion of the Jews. It is
known v/hat a place Jofeph long had in Egypt, and how he
managed it. Afterwards the people, while under bondage,
were fcattered through the land, and the piety of fomc of them
appearing in their fuiferings, could not but be taken notice of,
as their feathering through the land, gave occafion to the E-
gyptians to inquire, as to the principles that influenced it.
Uhe miraculous appearances of God on behalf of that peo-
ple in Egypt and its neighbourhood, in the wildernefs, would
have excited ths curlofity of a people, much lefs inquifitive
than they were. The reputation of Solomon, bis alliance with

S s the

330 AN INdUIllY INTO THE chap. xvr.

tlic crown of Egypt, c^nd his traffck with them, as they gave
a new occahon, lo ccold not hut ipiir them on to inquire fur-
ther into matters cf this ("ori. If to all this you add the general
character writers of all forts give to the Egypsians, That thev
were a people more tl^an ordinarily fond about matters of reli-
gion, infcmuch that our author Herbert obfei ves, that they are
Wid to be the firit tliiii taught religion*; and if further it is con-
fidered, that the Gentiles, finding the unfatisfat^tojinels of their
own opinions and praifliccs, v/ere very much inclined to change,
and adopt the cufiotns, practices, and way of every naiion in
matters ©f religion, to try if they could find any thine rr.ore f?.-
tisfying than their own ; — if, I fav, all tljefe are laid together,
it cannot be doubted that the neighbouring nations, and parti-
cularly the Egypjianb, learned many things* from the Jews in
matters of religion.

3, It is obfervable, that all thefe things fell out a confidera-
ble tiiTie before any of thofe great men appeared or tiouriihed
in the V. orld, whofe writings are come to us, and contain ihefc
truths, concerning the rile whereof we now difccurfe.

The [cv!^n fages, i hales. Solon, PittscuS; Bias, Chllo, Pe-
ri'inder, and Cleobulus, who raifed the reputation of Greece,
did not tlcurilh till about the time of the Babvlonilli captivity,
and long after the difpei non of the Ten Tribes ; feme do reck-
on it l23yL:''rst. Socrates and Plato flcuriilicd net for near
150 .years after thefe again. Now thefe are among the firft
who made any confiderable figure for learning of this icri in
the Heathen world, wliofc v/rilin;^3 are come to us.

4, All thefe great men did, forth'.irown improverrent^ tra-
vel into foreign nations, and made it their bunnefs to learn their
opinions and practices. Particularly we are told of the mofi
canfiderable of them by Diogenes Laertius and others, That
they were very concerned to know the opinios.s of the Egyptian
piie0.sin matters of religiof, and moil of ivhat they knew in
thefe matters was taught them by thofe- This Vv'ill be denied
b}'' none, that is acquainted widithe lives of thofe perfcns.

5, it is further obfervable, that in many inOances there is
fuch a plain ref'^mbhince in iheir opinions to the icripture ac-
counts of tlie origin of the zuorUIj the deluge, the peopling cj the
earth, and mofl other thip«»s, as could net be cafual ; but Oiews
plainly that tliey were derived thence. This in particular in-

f.nnces
* De Relio;. GenC pag. ?.
T Le Clerk Coaipui. Hilt. pag. 35, 40.

PRI>:CIPLES O^-^ THE MODERN DEISTS. q^i

iUnces bv rranv, particulr.rly [luetius and ofbers, to ^vliorr he
refers, is fo fjUy dcnionft ated, that it cafinoi, without inanifeft
impudence, be «lcnied.

6. What cones yet rorrjcvhat nearer io our purpofc, it is
very obfervablc e*/en as to thofe truths, which ha^'C lome foun-
dation in rea{on,^fiich as thcle, about the immortality of the
fouls of men, and their ftate after dfa^h, and the like, that
thofc great men of oid propofed them commoniv, without oflcr-
ing any proof of them, or any rejfons for them. Now it is
not creditile that, if they had been Jed to thofe notices by
reafon, they would have offer«-^d thofe important truths, without
osfering reafons of them. This obfervatian we find m.ade, as
to its lubftance, thobp;h not on fuch views, by no lefs a prfrfon
than Cicero, v./ho knew as vveli how maiters then i^ocd, to
fpeak modeiUy, as an • now ca-J do. Speaking of ihe imn'fOrtali-
ty of the foul, and rhi^ ancient ohilolophers* fcTiiiinen^s abou^t
it, he lavs, ^^ Sed r^deo ad antiquos- Rntionem iili /ententie
** fus non fere reddoant niji quid trat numeris ant dtjcnp ion-
** \bus explicandum—h' I atonem Jerunt primum de animorum
'^ ''Itrnitate non foluvi fenplj e ideni^ quod Pythagoras : fed ration-
** em ttiam attuli/[e *.'

■y. Nor is it lels confsderable to prove, thnt the notions,
which prevailed about \\\t imir-ortahiv of the foul, and a future
ftate, (and the like mav be faid of mar^y otlieis) were not
learned from reafon^ but from tradition ; and tliat the impreffion
and perfuafion of thefe trutiis wjre more generally entertained,
and more (Irongly r-vttcd among the vulgar than among the
philofophers. Whole* Ihoals (;f them^ cy Cat^rv^i as Cicero a-
bove quoted fpeaks, denieil and derid^'d ail thefe things, which
the vulgar nrmiy believed. This obfervation 1 find made by the
ItdiYnQd Dr. Owen, ** fCun inundi conditu j udiciu m poti haw: vi'
*' taniexe.rcendum.fama'n cathohcam. obtinuit Earn diara perfua-
^\fionem ccmitita eji immortalitatis anrmarum pr^jiimptio^ qu<s
** quamvis ratioai etiam innitatur, tamert cum niaxirm ftriiptr

*' a pud

* f' Btit I renirn fo r'e ancients. They cGrr,n:;c'.J7 did not give a
<' realb.i for their opinion, unlcTs when ai»y thi-ig was to be orpiain-

<' ed by numbers or ngares. rhey fsy thai I'iato was the nril who

" not only was of the fame opinion with Pyihaj^oras concerning the
<* iaimortaiity of the foul, bat vvho likewife a'.idiiced a reafoii for it.'*

T «' Thai: with the end of che world thsre was to be a jadguient after
<* this life, had agencial fa-ViC, and a prcfi.nption of the imaiorrality

'< of

332 AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. xvi.

** apud vuIguSf potius quam 'ooZas oblinuit, non niji traditioni
** 0dJcTi\}endcu tjl^'

8. When thcfe great men of old do give reafons of their o-
pinions, they ar« fuch, as any one may iee, never led them to
thefe opinions: but having, by tradition received them, theywere
atliamed to ho'd them, without being capable to give any reafon
for what thev held, and tlierefore, they fet their wits on the
rack to find out what to fay for them. And it was but feldom
they hit on the true ones. For moil part their reafonings are
plainly childidi, trifling and fophiftical. It were eafy to de-
monf^rate this. As to the arguments of Socrates and Plato for
the immortality of the foul, they are plain fophifms : and upon
what defign they were urged, we have heard before, viz. to
confirm thcmfelves in an opinion, the belief whereof was ac-
companied with fome advantage. A learned perfon fays jultly,
** That Pbto endeavours to prove the immortality of the foul by
*' fuch reafon^>,as5if they conclude any thing, would conclude it
•* to be a God*." And ihe fame maybe (iiid of Cicero and others.

9. It is moreover remarkable, to this purpofe, that not only
are there are many things to be met with in the writings and
pra6tices of the ancient writers amonft the Heathens, whereof
no colourable reafon can be given, nor any account m.ade, o-
therwifc than by afcribing them to ancient ana corrupted tradi-"
tions ; but further, that they knew not how to manage or im-
prove thofe hints, w'liich were this way handed to them.
Moll of tliem quite fpoil thcfe things in the telling. A few of
the more wiA?, confcious of their own ignorance, yet wanting
humility and ingenuity enough to acknowledge it, wrap tJiem-
fclves in clouds, and exprefs themfelves darkly, to conceal
their own ignorance from the vulgar; and one that underilands,
wfoujd not know whether to laugh or be angry, to fee their fond
admirers, ip later ages, fweati.ng to fetch fublime meanings
from words which the writers themfelves really underftood not.

10. In tise lart place, we find the ancients themfelves, on
fome occafionS) ozuning, that they owed the firfl difcoveries of
thcfe things to tradition. Dacier in the life of Plato, tells us,
** That he firfl inilructs them in religion, about which he efia-

'' blhhes

'< of fonis accompanied this pc^rfiiafion, which akhougb it is f-ipported
^' by reafon, yet as it has always prevailed moil among the vufyar,
** raiher than amono; philofophers, can only be afcribed to tradition."
* Dr. How's Liv'ing Tcrnple, Parr i, pa^. 122.

P^lNCJPLliS OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 333

*< biiihes nothing, without having confulted God ; that is, no-
♦* thing but what is conformable to true tradition and ancient
'' orac/fs*." To evince the truth of this, Plato's own words
are fuojoined, " God, (faith Piato) as we are taught by an-
** cient tradition J having in himfelf the beginning, the middle
" and end of all things, always goes on in his way, according
*♦ to his nature, without ever ftepping afide ; he is followed by
** j7^''/^<:^,vvhich never fails to punitTi the tranfgreffions committed
** agaiuR his iawf/' And a little after fpea king about the
punllhments of the wicked, he proceeds thus, ** They are not
*< limited to the miferies of this life, nor to death itfelf, from
" which even good men are not exempt; for thele are penalties
'* too light and Ihort, but they are horrible torments." i3ut
yet more remarkable to this purpofe are his words in his epil-
ties, *' A/ittquis vero fact if q ; fermonibus fides fe?nper hahenda^
*' qui declarant animum nobis e/fe i?nmortalem, etjudices habere ^
*' quorum dtcretis, pro merit 0 pr ' mia et fupplicia maxima atin-
** baantiir, iit primum gais e corpore dccejferit |."

Lay thele things together, and as they are in themfelves evi-
dent enough: lo 1 think they amount to a full demonftration of
the aflertion, we have above laid down, for the proof whereof
we adduced them; and they do abundantly (liew, how inconfi-
derately every thing met with in ancient writers is, put upon
the fcore of nature s light »

CHAP. XVII.

Wherein we con/ider what Herbert's opinion was as to the fuffi-
ciency of his Articles, and offer fame refeElions<>fnewing how
foolifi, abfurd and ridiculous the Deifts' pretences to thzir
fuffictency are.

E have now demonfirated that thefe five articles did
not univerfally obtain in the world, and that conle-
quently the Heathen world had not the means necejjary tofalva-
tion*

But
* Life of Plaro, pag. 8(5. + Plato de LigioLis, Lib. 4.

' % Piato, Epiit. 7. — «♦ But cre^^it ought ahvays to be givrn to ancient
" and facfed fpeeches, which declare that our ibuls arc innmortal, nnd
*« that thefc are judges by whofe fentences great revv:n " n-

«' meats. are to be diilributed according to merit, as 1 -i

« have left the body,"

^34 AN INCVJIRY INTO THE chap. xvii.

But flioird v/e grant what has been above proved to be falle,
viz. That ihci'e articles did univtr [ally obtain \ yet all is not
dane, nor is the dilficulty To got over ; for we are not agreed,
that thel'e, though acknowledged, are alone [undent.

We know our author would have us to believe, that they
are iuRicient. He tells us to this purpole, that when he had
fLvjrid them oi;t,. he fa"' that there was nothing wanting to trake
a comp'ete reJi^i'?n Ouiim ka/lei^^tiur eximias veiitates feorfim
parajfem^ difquifi-.i porro, quid hifce adjecerint, vel quidcni ad-i
■jiceie poJJintja^erdot'S, unde certxor fidei cerca fa lutein ^ ternam
daretur norma, ciut vit • intezfi'^is fantlito.fq', magis promovere-
tiir, aut communis ii'''ique llalnliretur Concordia Videbam jaiis
aha aU}iie aha hic a idi poff^., qmn tt additafuiffe. ; Jed q^*." vcri-
fates hajce objlruercnt, ene^virenlqiif. potms, quam vim roburque
iilis conciliariint*. t\ud indeed our author is lb bold as to chal-
lenge all the world to Oicvv what can be added to thele five ar-
ticles. Vt xidp.r^nrinterea antiftites^ pr ftilrj'q ; per tottm orbein
d>ffvf}i qu'dliife q-iinq: Artiruti.^, add^rc potuerint : Unde ve-
ra ilia virtus, qua ko mines Deo fi miles, confortioque ejus dignoi
ejfi.iit; vel pie'as, puritai fanEiitafq vit'" magis promoveri pof-
fiiit\. And gro . ii;g [\u\ bolder by this imaginary fucceis, he
proceeds lo inveior}i, fh ragh more covei'tly, againii x\i^ JatisJ ac-
tion oj Chrif}., as deitru^live to piety Of which he give* a mo(l '
diGngenuous account, as commonly he docs of all the articles
of revealed religion, u'hich he has occafion to mention.

But however co fident our autlior is, of the rilhcieacy of his
five articles in this place; yet elfeivhere he fhev/s he had not
overmuch certainty in his own mind, about this rnatter : For
fo'iTe piges after, he fays, Et qtiukm qidnque hofce Jrttci!hs
hnosj cuiLoUcofqu(i eije unufqmfq ; DtthJo procul fateb'itur ; id fa^

lutcm

" *» Wlr^r; therefore I Iv-fd got thefe excellent trurhs by themfelvej, I
<* next iT.pairod what prieih had added, or could add to thefe, vyhere',:y
f* they might b? a furer guide of our faith concerning eternal I'alvaiion,
•* or integrity and faniStity of life more promoted, or cosTiraon concord
** e*labliihed every where. I faw well enough that ditFerent things
<* might be added, nay had been added to them, but fuch as rather obltrnc-
«* ted and enervated thefe truths, tlian gave tht":!!!! any force or lirength.'*

+ " — That the priefts and biihops,fcattered over the whole world,
" mijiht fee in the mean time, wha'r they could add to thet'e five ar-
** tides ; or by what means that true virtue, which renders men like
" to God, and worthy of his tellovvihip, or by v.hich piet;, pUiU/
" i».nd fanclif)' of iiie, can be more proinoted."

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEUN DEISTS. 335

lutem tarnen aternam cornparandam mn fufficere prohlhehiint non
nuU'i, caterurriy qui Ita hcuius fusrity ne ilk quidnn at'dax ; nedum
f.n)um ternerariumq ; effcitern (meafintsntia) protukrit ; quurn nuUi
fails explorata fint Judicia Divina ; quam etium ob caiifajn, nequeea
fufficere protenus dixerim: atiamcn mcigls prohdilh mihi vldeiiir
eorum opinio ^ qui £qeu pie ac knlttr at Dei Judiclls Jlctuunty dum
homo, quod In Ce eft, pncfiat ; neque enim in cujufve pot ''ji ate eft,
ut fides free tradltiones c^uantumvls laxs (pr^fertlm ubl aUqua ex
parte coniroveriuntur) ad fe fatis pei'thigiint, neque tandem recia
conimimlq ; rat lone aulnq ; Jlrtlcuils nojtrls addi potefi dogma ,
unde magis pH, fincerlque evadunt Imnlnes ; aut pax, ccncordlaq 'y
publlca Tiiagls prornoveatur* ' Here our author is more modeft.

Thus we have feen what his opinion is; it now remains tbvt
we offer iboie re{le<5\ions on it. Many oflcr thcmfclves: 1 Ihall
only touch at a itvj»

I. 1 hough the Deifts are as defirous as any, to confine re-
ligion (o a narrow compafs, and perhaps it is as much their in-
lereil, as it is of any fort of men, that it finculd confift of fev/
articles ; yet, for ftiame, they cannot make it contain lefs, than
thofe five articles. Tliey own, and mull own all thole necelTary
to falvation, both in belief and pra6llce. It is not pcfiible,
they themfelves being judges, to reach the ends of religion, if
any of them are cut off. Since then we have above proved that
thefe did not univerfally obtt»in, it is plain, that all mankind
had r.oK fujficient knGivledge of religion^ Thus it is in fafi.

But now where fiiail the blame of this be laid ? On them-
felves? On the crieils ? Or on God ? This lafl cannot be faid.

Weil

* << And indeed every one will doubtleis con feff, that thefe five lirti.
« cles are good and catholic; yet forae will think the)- are not fufTicient
" for attaining eternal life. But whoever would fav fc, would be guilty
*' of uttering not only ahold, not to fay a cruel-and jabitrary fcntence,
" in ir.y opinion, as the Divine judgments are not fuiriciently known
" to any one j for which reafon likewife, neither would Ipofjtiveiy af.
*' firm that they were fufiitienr. Yet the opinion of thofe feeins to be
•< the nx)re probable, who judge equitably, pioufly and mildly of the
** Divine judgments, while a ivaw does what depends on him ; for it is not
" in the power of every one, that Faiths or Traditions, however lax,
** (efccciaily when they are any where controverted} (hould fufilcienriy
" extend to him; nor in line, can any doctrine be added to cur five arri-
*' cle*- by right and common re r.ibn, wherf by i"nen n":ay hecoire roove'
*< pious and finccre, or peace and pubhc concord may bv T..i-e -^rj-
*< rnctsd."

336 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE ckap. xvn.

Well ihcn, niuft tbefe villains of prieOs, with whom our
author and ail the fucceedlng Deills are io angry, bear the
biame of it, in that they did not better teach and infiru6t the
people, in the grounds of /in cere religion? But though our au-
thor, and all the Deifls, would fain lodge the blame here ; yet
I am fcarce fatisfied of the juftice of the charge ; (though I am
willing to own, that they were for the moil; part arch-viiiains)
for how lliall it be made appear that they theuifelves knew the
grounds of fincere religion ? I know our author blames them
for not imparting the knowledge of fincere religion to the peo-
ple ; and that he may be fure to Hiut the door upon them that
they may not efcape, he adds by way of parenthefis, licet illis
fitis cognitam *. But how proves he this, that they knew that
chajie and fincere religion well enough ? Might not they be fup-
poied ignorant of it, as well an moil of the phiiofophers, the
greateil moralids not excepted? Again, 1 do not uell fee what
right they had to teach, or how they were obliged. Did the
lav/ of nature authoiife them to be public teachers? I believe
the Deifis think not. Was not every man able to fnift for bim-
felf, and find the way to bleflednefs? Jf he was, what need
was there to truil thefe villainous prieRs ? Who was obliged to
liOen to them? if every man was not able, without the help of
forne inftruclor, then if that inrtru6ior failed in his duty, as it
certain they did almoU perpetually, (nay o,ur author will not
allow, nor fee I any need of that abnofl) what becomes of the
poor vulgar, who, without indruciion cannot reach competent
knowledge? He is not able to reach it, his inltru6lors fail of
their duty ; and for any thing I fee, the poor man vi'ants, and
muQ always want a fuflicient religion, and that without any
fault of his.

Weil then, unavoidably, either every man is able to do mid
know for hinifeif, in matters of religion ; or a great many, even
iiicit of the poor vulgar, are loR for good and all ; and there is
no help for it, and that without their fault. If the lali be faid,
our author has loR his point quite ; and if this be a fault, he
U'ill lay it at the door of Providence, that has not fufhcieiifly
provided all men, in the means necclTaiy for their future happi-
nefs : If the firil be faid, then the blame muil lie; at every man's
own dour. But meihinks our author is not willing of lliis ; for

he

* Pa.?. iZo fnh f./icm, — « Alihougb it v/ns; fufHcicntiy known to
<♦ them."

PRTNCIFLES OF TFIE MODERN DEISTS. 337

he would always excuje the vulgr.r, and iirppcfe them fo rud^^
and ignorant, that (hey Iiad not either will, courage, nor
ability to ftep othervvife, than they were led. But after all, tlie
fault muft be lodged at their doors, or the Deifts* whole caufe is
loft. I confefs, any one that was under fuch imprefficns of their
(lupid ignorance, as our author feems to have been, will even
think it hard enough to lay that every one of them had this abil-
ity, to find out a fufficient religion ; and I believe, not without
ground ; though I Oili fliink, that they tr.ight have knoVvn,aDd
done more than they did ; but this will do the Deifis' caufe no
fervice.

2. But further, the DciHs muft own that natural religion, ac-
cording to this mould of it at leaft, did never obtain in purity,
without any additions, in any place of the M^orld, Our author con-
fedes, that on this foundation, there was every where a (Irangc
fu peril ruc\ure railed. After he has fpoken of thofe articles, he
lubjoins "Hsec igitur fincerioris Gentilium religionis parttis fu-
*• ere ; rcii»:iu?£ vel commentitiae fcibellas vel archctypse r.ugcE,
** vel fcitanienla qusedem prohiberi poiTunt : inter quae (danuio
*' mortalium) nonnulla inf^na, nonnuUa etiam i^ipia vii'eban-
** lur*." Now, this being the cafe, I would gladly know, if
cur author's five articles aic looked upon as of luch virtue, that
they could hallow all thcfe additions made to them, or at leaf?,
fo far antidote tlie poifon of them, that perfons, who embractd
this complex frarrse of religion, confifting of thefe five articles,
and fuch additions as in every nation were made to them, might
yet reach happinrfs, or not.

It is pretended that thefe five articles of natural religion,
though contaminated witii thefe additions, (as our author fpeaks
when he enters upon hisdifcourfe about thofe orthodox points of
religion, ** Ritibus, CKreraoniseq ; ccntaminabantur, confpur-
'* cabanturqt,") are fufiicieni to lead to happinefs,. then this is
plainly to fay, that tne religion of every country was good
and fufficient, and that every one might be laved by that religi-
on he was bred in.J ^f the defence of this is undertaken, It

T t will

* Pa~. z\2 «« Thefe then were the parts of the more pure rejigi-

« on of :I-e Heathen?, the others were devifed fables, or ancient trifleF,
^f or falfe ornaments, among which, to the lofsof rr.an, fouie iXiad and
<t even impious things were likewife to he ieea»"

+ Par^. 1O4 Cap. 4. at the clofe.

% HeioML de Veritate. pag. 372.

338 AN INCtUlRY INTO THE chap. xvii.

will be fourd a pretty liard province, and one v/ill not eafiJy be
able to defend, '1 bat the confiplex reiipion of every country was
Sufficient, or ilut the virtue of thofe articles was fuch, as to pre-
ferve from the hurt of the additions. What if, in the complex
frame of moll religions of the world, fome of our author's fun-
damental articles are jiiflled out of their own place? Perhaps,
while each rejigion fets up for fo many inferior gods, they lob
the one fupreme God of much of his glory, to adcrn thefe ima-
ginary gods wi»h. It may be, more ftrefs is laid on rites than on
virtue, which our author makes the principal part of worQiip.
Perhaps more Orcfs is laid on their rites for expiation, than on
repentance. What if the additions made are Inch, as are utter-
ly inconfiflent with a due regard to theie articles, or a jufi im-
provement of them ? What if there arc other things yoked in
with them in m.oft religior-s, that are as derrga?ory to the hon-
our of God, as thefe can be fuppoied conducive for its advance-
ment ? How can fuch a horrid medley of things, found and un-
fcund, orthodox foundations tiud impious fuperfiruCiures, be ac-
c^ptible to God, or ufcfui to man ? One half, to wit, our au-
thor's five calholic articles, is dcfigncd to lead men to blifs, pre-
tend theDeills: And the other, to wit, the rites -and ceremo-
?2/Vf, are defigned to the vvoift of purpofes, by thofe villains of
pricRs, who aim at cheating the world. Now, how ftiall fuch
crofs defigns agree or confifl ? Or, how can means adapted to fo
very different, nay, quite oppofite ends, be united and hang
together? Or, if they are united, how can that religion, which
conhih of fuch j;^rnncr and incoherent materials, turn to any
account ? But this opinion is fo ridiculous, that I need not infifi
in difproving of it. No man of fobriety can ever pretend that
thefe articles can be of any uie, if each of ih-^m is not kept in
its own place, and if care is not t;;ken to guard againd all ad-
ditions, which are inconfitient ivith a due reipeel: to thofe arti-
cles. Some little additions, perhaps'cne might fuppofe would
do no great hurt : b:.t if there are any, that entrench on the
foundations, and put them cut of their place, the whole fa-
bric fails, and all is ruined. New I think it were no hard work
to prove, that the additions were fuch, in every nation, as
rendered the whqje utterly ufeieis, and infufficient to any of
the moil confiderable ends of religion, either with lefpett to
God or r^^an.

But if it is pretended, that vvliile thofe five articles are alTert-
cd fufiicient, it is only meant, that if perfons would abandon

all

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 339

all thofe extrvagant, deftru£live and fihhy additions, which
every where arc siiade to them, and onlv regard Uicm, ihcn in
foiiowing thele they im^ht attain to iite and eternal happinela ;
if, I fay, this is alleged, then 1 would all;, how fliall we dif-
tinguilh betwixt thoie a.ticles and others that are interwoven
with them, in each country r* Bv what rriarks {hall the necefla-
ries be known from tie not necelfaries ? The fundamentals from
the accelTaries ? Is every man able, with our author, to dilfe6^t
and infptdt the feveral religions ot the countries where they
live, and feparate (he necclVaries from thefe that are not fo ?
Our author found this a pretty hard talk; What (hall poor
mean people then think of ii ? Our author has iliown what fair
pleas might be made for many of the mod pernicious parts of
the religions of the r-ations. Would a poor countryman be
able to rid his feet of fuch fetters ? It is utterly impollible that
the one half of mankind couid diftinguilh betwixt what was to
be rejeCied, and whit was to be retained. In a word, it is evi-
dent, that ail the world over, things pernicious and deflruCHve
were fo twifted in with things of another fort, and fuch fair
pleas made for them, that it was ut erly impoffible for the poor
ignorant vulgar to divide the one from the other. Since ihen
thefe five articles fignifv 1 othing unlets they were fevered from
thefe other things, which were every where interwoven with
them, and moft part of m.'nkird were utterly unable to do this,
which I doubt no man eve[ did before our author, it I'eems evi-
dent, that of whatever ufe they may be to our author, who was
fo (harp-fighted, as to fpv them out and diftinguilh them from
the other things witii whj h they were mixt ; yet they can be
of no ufe to the far greater part of mankind, and confequently
the far greater part of the human race fiill muft he ow^ned deliif
tute of the means that may bejuftly termed fuiticient to lead
them to future happinefs. Thefts five artickr., as in fatt they
have always been interwoven with other things, were not lutii-
cient to fave any; and whatever their force might be, if they
had been fevered f;om other things, yet they not being fo, be^
fore our author did it, and moft part of m.en being utterly un-^
capable of making this diitinction, they mull be looked on as
infufficient to many, at lead of mankind, who therefore cer-
tainly were denitute of means needful for future happir,}eis, and
fo left to perish. I know our author pretends that lome Vv'ere
able to diftinguiih, and did make a diiFerence betwixt thefe arti-
cles and the additions : Vervm quinq ; ariiculosj'upra diBos

(uti

£4o AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xvii.

(uti qiu in cordc defcrihuntiir ) fr.u ulla h-^/itatiGuc accipuhant
oiim Gentiles dubio procul ; de reliqms pitto, azihgcl'ant, ititn li
pTc'efertimy qui inter itlos Jalttm fapisntiores exij}i?nabantur* *
How ill-grounded our author's confidence as to the univerfal
acceptance of his five articles is, we have feen above. What
he fubjoins about the Gentiles dirtinguilhing the additions that
were made to xhzvn^ from them, comes not up to the point : For
the q'jeftion is net. Whether fome could thus diftimgulih the one
from the other ? but, Whether ail did, or could ? And when he '
pretends that (omc of the more dilcerning did \o, v.hat proof
advances he? Nothing but his bold puto. This reflccticn
might be further urged, but 1 (haliparsit, and proceed to ano-
ther.

3. How iliall one be latisBed that thefe five avticles are ail
that uere neccUary ; or that they are Sufficient ? Are the De-its
all agreed about this ? No, we have heard one above making
feven neceiiary. Nay our author is not too confident, as we
have heard above, when he fays:, ihia?n nulli Jatis cxplorata
Jint juduia dwina ; quam etiam oh caujamy neqac eos fitjficere
protenus dixerimf. We fee our author is not veiy lure about »he
iufticiency of thole articles. But lie feeins pretty pcfitj/e that
there is no other article djfcoverable by the cGinnrson rec'-fon of
marikind, that can be of any great ufe, or that is neceiiary to
anfwer the great ends of religion, the public peace and bet-
tering of mankind. But we lee the DeiOs arc not all agreed
here : fome think more needful. But I have two or three
words to lav to all this — May no article be allowed neceiiary
that is controverted? So our author infinuates. And Blount
in his Relioio Laicij is pofitive oftener than once.t» Then I
would know of the Deifts, Have never thefe articles, any or
all of them, been controverted ? Have not w,e already proven,
that the /",»7/ aillcle has been. controverted, about tlie being of

one

* ?d'y. zi T. — '< B-Jt doubrlcfs the Ileathcns fonr.erly received with-
<« out any heiitation, thcfc five ilrticles above nic;uJop.ed (as being
<* written in the.ir hearts) of the reft I think that they doubted, and
«' efpeclally thofe awiong them who were rt:ckoned wifer that) others."

i VIJ. pag. 47. <«— As-; th? divine judgments are not fuilScicntly
" known to ^ny one, iot wliu.h reafon likeviife, neither would 1 po-
'* llrivejy afiirin that they were fulTicieiic."

X Compare y:\g, 3 and 4.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 341

. :e JuprtTTie God ? Is not our author's third article, viz. ** That
virtue (as it is diicoverable by the light of nature) is the princi-
pal part of the wcrihip cf God," dilpuied by Chrii^ians ? I^o
not the follov/ers of Spinoza deny repentance to be a duty, and
that in coriipiiance with their marter, who pretends to demon-
ftrate in his EthickSt ** That he who repents is twice mi-
ierable * V" Has not the fifth been controverted by many of
old ? Let any who denies this read Cicero, Lib. i. Tufc, Qjnejl,
or Plato's Pliedon, and they will learn, that it has been contro-
verted by more of the wife men than embraced it. And do not
very many of our modern Deifls call it in queftion ? Again,
have there not been fome other articles as univerfally agreed,
us little controverted, and perhaps lefs than fome of thefe? To
^:ive but one inftance^ Has not the article about the worfhip of
God, that he was to be worfhipped with fome foiemn external
v.'orihip, whom we owned as God, been as much agreed to as any
cf the refl ? Doth it not arife from the common reaibn of
is.'aiikinc? But I rr;ali wave this.

4. 1 here is another thing that I would knov/ of the DclPis,
concerning their five articles* Do they think them, as they
are propofed, fufficient ? or muft they not be well explairjed?
If as they are propoi'ed, I would gladly fee the m^^n that can
have the face to maintain, what is not only untrue, but ridicu-
lous. Will, for intlance, the o'Jirning virtue to be the princi-
pal part of the worlhip of God, fi^nify any thing to the world,
while they know not, and are not agreed what is virtue and
what is vice ? Is not this to mock the world, to propole gene-
ral articles, and tell the world is agreed about them, while yet
one half is not agreed what is the fignilication cf thefe general
words? Is not this a plain cheat? It is true, Blount, who h:;s
copied all fiom our author, as the prefent Deifts do from him,
tells us that ihcfe articles nuiO be well explained. '* Neither
*^ can I, (fays he) imagine fo much as one article more in com-
*' rr.on reafon, that could make man better, or more niouf,
** when the forefaid were rightly explicated and obfervedf,"
But now, are not th^fe articles fullicient unlefs ligttly cxpH-

' catcd ?

/rue ex

* Spin. Ethicks pag. 4. Prop. 54. P.xntraitla -z-iytus nnjt efi^ J'l
ratio?te non oritur^ qtiem fafii pceniteti his mijcy feu impoU7i% eft. — " Peni-
** tence is not a virtue, nor arifcs from reafca, ibr he who if pents of
" what he has done, is twice mircrable» or v/c?k."

+ Religio Laici. pag. -yj, ^ *

342 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.xvii.

cated ? No, he dares not fay It. Well, was the world agreed
about this right explication of !hcm ? Who ever did rightly ex»
plain them ? Point us to the peribn who diet it, either for him-
ielf or o hers ? Was every body able to do it for himfelf? U not,
then I fear the world wanted ftiii a fuilicient religion, after all
the pains taken to provide them in one. And further, what is
the meaning of our author's wording the third article, ** That
virtue is the principal part of the worfliip of God ?" This may
be true, though it be not the only part. Well, though it is the
principal part, may there not be another part necejjary? Tho'
perhaps the head of a man is the principal part, yet there are
lome other parts neceflary. Was not the world as m.uch agreed
\\\a\ there fhould be another part, as that this was a part of the
M^orOiip of God ? I be ieve it is eafy to prove the world was
more agreed as to the firfl than the lall» Why then muft this
be overlooked .? I believe i could guefs pretty near,*— 'he v^ as
afraid to do it, becaufe he faw that he would prefently be con-
founded w^ith the differences about the way of worfhip, and
that he would never be able to maintain, that reafon was iufh-
cient to direct as to x\\z fokmn zuorphip of God; and that, if
he ihouid affcrt it, he would have not only Ch'iflians to difpute
th.e point with him, but Heathens. But leH it (liould be thoug.ht
\}'hat is alleged of the Heathen's looking on reafon as income
petent for this, is ojoi.ndlefs, 1 fliall only copy you a little
of Socrates and Alcibiades's difcourfe about worililp out of Pla-
to, or rather remind the reader of what we quoted from him
before. Socrates meets Alcibiades going to the temple to pray,
and dllTuades him from it, becaufe he knew not how to do it, ^,:^
till one (hould come and teach hifii. Socrates fays, " It is al-
^* together necciTary you ihouid wait for fome perfon to teach
** you how you ought to behave youifelf, both towards the
** gods and men." Alcibiades replies," And v/hcn will that
** time come, Socrates? And who is he that will inflru<5\ me?
" With what pleafure fhould I look on him !" Whereupon So-
crates bids him hope ** that God will do it, and will take the
*' mift otF his foul, and cure him of that darknefs, that hinders
** him from dininguiibing betwixt good and evil." Wherc-
** upon Alcibiades favs, ** I think 1 muil defer my facrlfices to
•' that tim-::." To which Socrates returns, ** You have rea-
*' ion : it is more fafe to do (o, than run fo great a ri(k*"

And

* ivi. D.icier's Flato En.gllf!.:ed, Vol, i. pag. 249, 250. Second
Alcibiad. Ur, Uf Prayer,

i

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 343

And the fame Plato elfewhere tells us, ** That tliis inriru6^or
*• mull: be a psrien Tomevvhat more tlian human." Nor was
Jamblicus, a famous Platonick philofopher, w ho lived in the
fourth century, otherwife minded, whofe m ords, as i fmd them
tranfiated by Mr. Fergufon, run thus : ** It is not eafy to know
** what God v/ill be pleafed with, unlefs we be either immediate-
** ly inUrucied by God ourfelves, or taught by feme perfon
'* whom God hath converfed with, or arrive at the knowledge
** of it by feme divine means or other *."

5. There is another thing that I vv'culd gladly be informed of,
and that is, whether every fort of knowledge of them be (ui^.'
cient ? Or, is a clear, certain and firm perfuafion needful ? If
the firfi, How can a dark, uncertain and wavering knowledge
have that influence upon prad^ice, and that vigour to excite to
a compliance with them, which is abfolutely needful in order to
attain the benefit of them ? If the latter, How will cur autlor
prove, that it was any where to be met with, as to their, all, in
the Heathen world ? Or, how will he make it appear, that it is
attainable by m^ere reafon ? Melhinksour author's words above-
noted, as to the fifth article, feem not to import any great
certainty. 1 his might be urged to that degree that it would be
very hard, nay, I fear not to fay fo, impoirxble, for (he DeiTis
to rid their feet of it.

6. I would further know, Will thefe five articles be fumcicnt
to this end, to lead to eternal happinejsy whether men direct to
it or not ? Is not the intention of fome confideraiion in m.oral
ad^ions V And what if I (liould deny that the religion of Hea*
thens was dire6fed to this end, the obtaining of future happi-
nefs? If 1 ihould, I know feme very great men are of my mind.
1 fhall name two, the one a Chrifiian, the other a Heathen.
The firjl is the famous Samuel Pufl'endorf, counfcllor of fiate
to the late king of Sv/eden. His words are v/orthy to be here
tranfcribed, though fcm^ewhat long. ** Now to look back to

the firll beginnings of things, we find, that before the nativi-
ty of our Saviour, the inhabitants of the whole univerfe, ex-
cept the Jews, lived in grofs ignorance as Xo fpiritual afTairs*
For what was commonly taught concerning the gods, was
for the moil part involved in fables, and u:oft extravagant

abfurdities.

* Lib. 4. de Lege Civ. by Dr. leilie ag^inft the Jews. m-g. 306.
Ferg. Enquir. into morjtl virtue, &c. pn^;. 177. j;irr.LIi. de \ >ia.
Fythag. Cap. 28.

344 A:J I:\QIJIRY INTO TME chap. xvii.

*' abfurdities. It is true, fo'.TJe of the- learned :imong them have
** pretended to give fonie rational account concerning the n?.-
** ture of the gods and the foul ; but all tills in fo imperfect
*' and dubious a manner, that they th^-mfolves remained vcrv
*^ uncertain in the whole matter. They agreed almoO all of
^^ thern in this point, that mankind ought to apply themfelves to
<' the pracfticeof virtucj but they did not propofe any other fruiis,
<* but the honour and benefits, which ti;cnce did accrue to civil
'^ fociet}^. For what the poets did give cut concerning tlie
^' rewards of virtue and puniihments of vice after death, t\'as
^' by thefe, who pretended to be the wi feft among them, look-
«' ed upon as fables, invented to terrify and keep in awe the
i' coma.on people. The refl of the people lived at random,
i' and v/hit the Heathens cfillcd religion, did not contain any
a doctrine or certain articles coucerr.ing the knowledge ofdi-
(( vine matters. But the greateft part of their religious worjhip
a ccnhrted if? facrifices and ceremonies, which tended more to
a fports and voluptuoufnefs, than to tlie contemplation cf di-
i( vine things. VVlierefore tl;e Heathen religion did neither
'• edify in this life, nor adord any hop'^sor comfort at the time
ii of death*." Thus far he. Now methinks here is a quite dif-
ferent account of tlie Heathen world from that which our author
gives us, and that given bv no churchman, but a ftatefrnan ;
and one as learned as our author too, and that both in hijiory
an.i the lazu oj nat'ue^ as his works evince; and in my opinion
it is the juiter of the tv;o accounts, '^^hc Jtcond is Varro, quoted
by our author, w ho divides the reliaicn of the Heatb.ens into
three forts, Primum genus appeilat Mythicon, Juundunit Civile
tertiunij Phy^cumt. The hrii is that cf the poets, which is al-'^
to[/erher/rt/'i-/j:.'i- The other which he calls natural, is tb.at
of the phiIoil)pher?, which is wholly employed about the nature |
of the gods. Ad Varro exprefsly fays, it was not meet for
for, n »r of any ufe to the vulgar. Tue third fort was what
he calls civil, which wa-s wholly calcjlatcd for human iociety,
ajid its fuMport : an J to this all the public worfhip belonged, if \
. we may believe Varo in the pafi'age v/e row fpeak of. When I
he lias 0[)ened the nature of e^^ch uf them, be concludes with
i\n account of the delign of tlicm. *' rrinui theologia maxirne

* Introdua. IliPu of Europe, pao. 3/;-. Ch. 12. Par. 2.
+ 5:;ee it alii) in Au-id. de Civii. Dei, V.j. 6. C;i'-, -

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 345

** accormncdata efl ad thmtriun: fecundafdl. naturalis ad fnu?i'
** dunt: Tertia ad urbe?7i*»'' No word here of eternal life, as
the defign of any of them. The palTage ilfelf fully excludes it,
and had it not been too long, had been worthy to be tranfcrlbed.
7. To draw to a concluhon, Was it enough to the Heathens
that thefe things were fuCicient, although they did not know
them to be To? Or was it needful that they fnould know them
to be fo? If the lafi be laid, how could they be fure about that,
even the vulgar fort of them, which cur author after all bis appli-
cation to this controverfy, could not win to be fure of? If th^
firft be faid, I would afk any Deift, Was not the end of natural
religion fixed, and were they not certain ? Or might they not,
at leaU, be fixed and certain about it ? if it was not, how could
they ufe or chufe means, or dire6\ them to an end which was
not fixed, and they were not certain about? If it was, then with
what courage could they ufe means with refpect to an end and
means, in the ufe of which they had fo many difficulties to
grapple with ; yet they could not be fure that they were fufficl-
ent by the leaft ufe of them to gain the end? Was it enough of
encouragement, that they might ufe them at all adventures, not
knowing whether they were, in themfelves, fufficienl to reach
the mark or not? Meihinks our author is very defe6live as to
motives to excite to virtue.

C H A P. XVIII.

Containiiiig an anfiuer to foim of the. Delfts' principal arguments
for thz fufficicncy of Natural Religion.

WE have now confidered what the Deifts plead from uni-
verjal confent\' ^.x\A have fufficiently cleared that it is not
by them proven, that the world was agreed as to thefe articles ;
that indeed the world did not agree about them ; that even
they who owned them, were led to this acknowledgment, at
lead of fome of them, rather by tradition than nature's light ;
and that though they had acknowledged them, they are not
fujficient* It now remains that we confidcr thofe arguments,
wherein they conceive the great ftrength of their caufe to lie.

U u The

* << The firft theology is fitteH for the theatre, the feconi> to viit,
^* the natural, for the v»orld, aqd the third for the city,"

34^ AN INCLUIRY INTO THE chap. xvm.

The Hrfl argument, uhich indeed is the ftrongcft the Deifts
cati pretend unto, is thus propofed by their admired Herbert:
" Et quiiiem quum media ad viBum, veftitumque heic commoda
*' Jv-ppeditant cunBis natura five Providtntia reritm communis,
^^ J^fp^cari non potui, eundem Deum, Jwe ex natura^ Jive ex
** gratia^ in Juppedilandis ad heatiorem hoc noftro fiatum, me-
** diiSy ulli hominum decf/e poffe vel velle, adeo ut licet mediis
" illis parum re£le, vel fdiciter ufi jint Gentiles, haul ita tamen
*' perDeum ophmum maximum jlc tent, quo ?ninus falvi fierent*^'
To the fame purpofe fpeaks Blount in his Rdigio Laid, and
A^ W, in his letter to him in the Oracles of Resfon, of whom
afterwards. The force of all that is here pleaded will beft ap-
pear, if it is p.it into a clear arpjument, and I (hall be fare not
to wrong it in the rropofal. The argument runs thus :

The good nefs of God makes it necejfary tkat all men be prO'
Tided in the means Titcejfary for future hlijs^

But all men are provided in no other ineans of attaining future
blifs javc nature: s lipjit.

Therefore no other means are neceffary for all men fave the
light of nature*

The minor or fecond propofition needs not to be proven,
f.nce is it is owned by thofe who maintain revelation, that it
is not given to all men, and therefore that many have indeed
no other light to guide them, fave that of nature, in matters of
religion, or ia any of their other concerns.

The fifit proportion, " That the goodnefs of God makes it
neceifary that ali men be provided in the means of attaining
future blciTcdncfs," is tliat which they are concerned to prove.
And the ftrength of what ihey urge for proof of it amounts in
Ihort to this :

The gcodnefs and wifdom of God feem to render it necejfary
that all creatures f hut more efpecially the rational, he provided
in all means necef/ary to obtain thofe ends they were 7nade capa-
hie of, and obliged to pur fie.

But men a^e ynade capable of, and obliged to purfae elernal
happinefs and fe!icit\.

Therefo'e the good nef and wifdom of God make it neceffary
that all men fliould be provided in the means neceffary to obtain
future and eternal blifs.

Here v/e have the ftrength of their caufe, and wc fhall there-
fore

* For the tranfialion, fee note at bottom of pag. 277 of this b^o'c.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 347

fore confider this argument the more ferioufly, beciiufe fome
fecm to be taken with it, and look upon it as having much
force. Before I offer any diredt anfvver, I fiiall make fome
general ref]e6lions on it. The hrft procefs is only defigned to
make way for this laft, which indeed is the argument, and con-
tains the force of what is pleaded by the Deilis.

Now concerning this argument, we offer the few following
reflections, which will not a little weaken its credit, and make it
look fufpicious-like.

I. That propofition whereon its whole weight leans, viz.
** That the goodnefs of God obliges him to provide his crea-
tures in the means necefiary for attaining their ends," is one
of that lort, about which we may, in particular cafes and ap-
plications of it, be as eafily miftaken, and are as little in iuto*,
to be pofitivs in our determinations, as anywhere elfe. For,
although we are furer of nothing: than that God is good^ and
7?iu/i aB congruou/ly to his goodnefsy in general ; yet when we
come to make parti':ular inferences, and determine what, in
point of goodnefs he is obliged to do, we are upon very flippe-
ry ground, efpecially if we have not, as in this cafe it is, the ef-
fects to guide us. For, befides that goodnefs is free in its effects,
divine and not affixed to fuch ftated rules knowable by us, as juf-
tice is, goodnefs, in its adings,is under the conduCf and manage-
ment of all-comprehending wifdom, which in every cafe wherein
God is to a6t,confiders that a being not only infinitely good is to
a6t,but alfo one who is infinitely wife, holy, juft and righteous ;
and therefore all-compiehending wifdom takes under confider-
ation, or rather has in its view the concernment of all thofc pro-
perties of the divine nature ; and withall, all the circumdances
belonging to each particular cafe, and takes care that the cafe,
in all its circumftances, be fo managed, that not one of the
divine perfections fliine to the eclipfing of another ; but that all
of them appear with a fuitable luUre. Nov/, it is certain that
we, who are of fo narrow underftandings, and fo many other
ways incapacited to judge of the wavs of God, cannot reach
either the different intereffs of the divine properties, and judge,
in a particular circumilanciated cafe, what beiits a God, who
is at once good, holy, wife and righteous ; nor can we reach ail
that infinite variety of circuir.ffances, which lying open to the
all-corr.prehending view of infinite and confummate wifdom,
may make it appear quite olherwife to him than to us. Hence,

in
* " hi fafety^ '*

345 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ghap.xviii.

in fiiSt, we fee that an almofl infiui'e number cf things fall out
in the government of the world, u'hicli we know not how to
reconcile to divine goodnefs: and as many J^re left undone,
which we would be apt to think infinite goodnefs would make
necedary to be done. This coniideration, if well weighed,
would make men very fpirlng in determining any thing necef-
fary to be done, in refpe*£^ of divine goodnefs, which either it
is evident he has not done, or of which we are not fure that he
has done, which perhaps we (hall make appear, if it is not
from what has been already faid evident, to be the cafe.

2. I obferve, as to what is advanced, *' That man is
made capable of, and obliged In duty to purfue eternal telici-
ty," that ahhougli from revelation we know this to be true as
to man in his original ccnditutionj and by the remaining de-
fires of it we may guefs that po(ribly it was fo ; yet, if we iet a-
fide divine revelation, and coniider rnan in his prefent Hate,
concerning which the qiieftion betwixt us and the Deiits pro-
ceeds, we cannot by the help of nature's light only, with anv
certaintv conclude, ** that inm is capable of and obligt^d to
purfue etern^jl^ felicity." We fee the man diilolved by death.
Nature's light knows nothing of a refurre^i^ion. Without a re-
furrcclion there is nothing can be f.iid for man's eternal felicity.
Though we grant his foul to ha -e no principle of corruption in
itfelf, and fo to be in this f^^nie immortal ; yet this cannot fecure
usagaini^ the fears of annihilation. And the guiis anS defircs of
felicity, from which we mav be induced tofufpe^i fome Inch fiate
defigned for man, being apparently fruftrafed, by {he dilfolution
of man, to which they have a refpecl, cannot but make n»cn,who
have no more fave nature's light, hefitate mightily about this
affertlon ; WiicQ it is plain, that the dc fires we find in ourfelves
of fehcitv, do rcfpecSl the whole man ; and the avcrfion we
have to diifolutjon refpects our natuics in their prefent entire
frame and conliitation. Befides, it is of moment, that if man,
now entire, is at a lofs how to judge of the ends for which he
was made, nsuch more mud he be fuppofed in a (Irait how to
judge and determine for what ends any particular part belonging
to his confiitutlon was defigned, after the dlfi'olution of the whole
in a fcparate Hate, that is, in all its concernments, fo much hid
from and uijknown to us. Farther, although undoubtedly as long
as we are, it is our duty to make it our chief aim to plcafe
Cyod, and feek for felicity only In him ; yet fince, not ojily
our beings, but that felicity which may be fuppofed attain il-ie

by

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 349

by us, arc emanations frotn fovereign, free and undsferved
bounty, without fome intimation from him, in way of promilc,
we can draw no fure conclufion as to its continuance, were
we innocent, much lefs can we being guilty.

3, This argument concJudes nothing in favour cf the Deifis;
whatever it may fay for the Heathens. For were it granted,
tl)at God is obliged to provide al! men in the means necelTary
to future felicity ; and that he has not given ajl men any other
means: yet it cannot be hence inferred, that he has given no
other means to fome. In this cafe, if all this were granted,
which yet we have not done, it would follow, that they, who
l)aye no other means, muft look on thefe as fulficient, and that
they really are fo : But fiill God is left at liberty to prefcribe
cfher duties to any particular perfons, or nations, by revela-
tion ; and if this revelation come, they are obiieed, to wltorii it
comes, to attend, receive and obey it. "Now \{ \\\z Jcnptures
be a aivine revelation, attended with fufiicient evidence, which
the Deilh mufl either allow, or overthrow v^hat it pleads for
itfelf ; they are everlallingly undone, ualefs they receive it, and
coiDply with it.

4. 1 obferve, that the conclufion of this arpjument, which it
aims at the eliabliihrnent oi, viz. That God in point of goodne/s,
muj} provide all men in the means nece/fary to juturtjeluily, and
confequcntly has donz it, is exceedingly prejudiced, by ifs lying
croJs to tlie plain fenfe and experience of the world in all ages,
as has been plainly maie appear. Now in this cafe, where tho
principles or premilTes are dark, and fuch whereabout we may
tahly be niiilaken, which is the cafe here, as appears by the
two firil rcilciStions ; and the conclufion carries a manifeil con-
tradiction to what we mu(t certainly know, and have e^vpeii-
ence of; in this cafe we have reafon to conclude, that there
lies certainly a fallacy or mifiake in one or other cf the princi-
ples , though we cannot difcover prefently were it pvi^cifely is.
And therefore, although m.en could not eallly except ag::inft
the pr^miiTes or principles, v/hence it is deduced; yet they
would think themielyes fufbciently warranted, if not plainly to
reje6i, yet to be iliy in admitting the conclufion : forafmuch as
the admitting the conclunon will obli|i:e them to deny what
their own fenfe and experience, as well as that of the v.csld,
adores them about ; Whereas, it is much more reafona'jle to
think and determine that there lies fome fallacy in the princi-
ples, though it may be they are not in cafe to dct^iSl it. No

man,

35® AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, xviii.

man, by the arguments againfl motion, can be brought to quef-
tion its being, much lefs its poffibility ; yet there are thoufands,
even no mean icholars, who cannot anfwer the arguments that
conclude againJl it. But in very deed, this argument is not i'o
firong, as to need fo much nicety.

Having thus far weakened it by thefe general reflections, I
fliall next lay down and clear fome propofitions that will lay a
foundation for a clcfe anfwer fo it.

1. All men, at prefent, are involved in guilt, have corrupt
inclinations, and are under an inability to yield perfedl obedi-
ence to the law, they are fubje6led to. That all in more or
icfs, are guilty of fin, cannot be well denied, and we have heard
U^s Oracles of Reajon owning, <* Th:it all do err fometimes,
*' even the bell, in their a6\ions." That men are corrupt, or
have corrupt inclinations, has been above futficiently evinced.
That all are under fome fort of inability to yield perfedl obedi-
ence, is atteded by the experience of all, and befides, is an in-
evitable confequent of the former : for it is not poffible to fup-
pole one poffeil of corrupt inclinations, and yet able to yield
peife6l obedience. Nor need wc fland to prove what the De-
ids own. For A. W. in his Letter to Charles Blount, fpeak-
ing of the law of nature, fays, ** I do not fay that we are able
perfe6lly to obey it." I difpute not now of what fort this ina-
bility is, whether only moral, fuch as arifes from the will's in-
clination to evil ; or natural, which imports fuch an inability
as fuppofes the nature of the faculties vitiated, though the fa-
culties are not v/anting. 7>.e condemning! of our own liearts,
and the nature of the moral government we are under, fufii-
ciently allures U3, it is fuch as does not excufe from fault ; and
further we arc not concerned : though, after all, I ^o not
underhand how the will can be fixed in an inclination to evil,
or aveifation from good, unlefs the nature of the will be {v.-^^oi-
ed a{ie6>ed with fome indifpofition, though the faculty is not re-
moved. But of this only by the bye. It is enough to our prc-
ient.purpofe, that man is guilty, corrupt, and thence unable.
He tnat will deny this, mull fuppofe us blind and fenfelefs.

2. \i reafon can afcertain us of any thing, it does of this, that
things were not originally thys with man, or that man, when
he was hrft made, was not thus guilty, corrupt or impotent.
None will any dare to f:;y, that at ic^^. he was guilty. And to af-
fert him either corrupt or impotent, oveithrows all the juft no-
fions we have of the Djity. How can it be fuopofed, that infinite

wifdum

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 351

wifdom could ena£l laws, which were not only not likely to
take effect, but really could not poflibly be obeyed by men
fubje£led to them! Hov/ can we fuppole infinite goodnefs to c-
ftabllfn laws under a penalty, and deny the powers, which were
indifpenfably requlfite to obey them, and without which It was
not poffible to evite the penalty ! How can we Tuppofe infinite
righteoufnefs and holinefs to confent to a conftltution of this
kind ! How is it conceivable, that a God, wife, juft and good,
fhould originally have implanted in our natures inclinations
contrary to thofe laws, that were the tranfcript of, and bore
the imprefs of all thefe perfections! Or, how can we once
dream that he implanted inclinations, which it was criminal to
fatisfy or comply with! For ray part, I fee not what can be
reafonably faid in anfwer to this.

3. It is further evident, that man could not have fallen into
this flate he now is in, or from that wherein he was made, but
by his own default. If this is denied, I inquire, were (hall the
blame be laid? Will ihey lay it at God's door? Befides, that
this Is blafphemy, it is further evident, that all the former ab-
furdltles will recur : Fcr it is to no purpofe to give powers, and
take them av/ay again without any default in the perfon who
lofes them, the obligation to obedience or fuffering upon difo-
bedience fiill continuing. Nor can It be laid upon any other,
becaufe if man Is without his own fault, robbed oflhe powers
neceffary to obey, the obligation to obedience cannot be ri^^ht-
eouOy continued. Nor was it confiRent uilh the divine wlfdoni,
to have obliged men to obedience, under a penalty, while there
was a poiTibility of man's lofing the power to obey, v/ithout a
fault on his own part. It remains then, that man has by hi^
own fault forfeited what he has in this part loft. And to this our
own confclence, and the confclences of all finners, who are fen-
fible of fjn, confent, that God is free and v/e gulhy.

4. Flereon it inevitably follows, that man is at prefent in a
corrupt, finful, and impotent ftate, into which by his own default,
he has fallen. Nor fee 1 how It Is pofiible to evIte this, which
tonly fums up the three preceding allertions. The firft whereof
is undeniable with fober and Ingenuous perfons, being attefted
by the plaineft and cleareft experience, and the other two Oand
firm upon the ciearefl; deduCVions that our reafon can make. If
any Deift Ihall fay. How can this be that we are fallen into fuvch
a ftate? I anfwer, i. The queftion is not. How can It be? but, I^
it fo ? I think I have faid enough to ibew that it 15 fo. 2, Here-

bv'

^^2 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xvin.

bv vvc may lee natural religion has its myfleiics too, as well as
levealed. And I think I have told more than one of them.
Q. If this will not I'atisfy, then get as much faiih and humility as
will teach you to fubjea yourielf to lupernatural inftruction,
and vou may come to underftand how it came to be fo. If
you will not, ycu muft remain in the dark, and there is no
help for it.

Now 1 have laid a plain feundatton for an anfwer to this ar-
gum.ent, whereon the Deifts value themi'elves lo much. It was
not becaufe I thought (o long an anlwer needful for the argu-
ment, but to make the matter a little mere plain, that we have
difcourfed it at this length.

The argument then runs thus. The zvi/dom and goodmjs of
God mah it ntczffary that all his creatures fr.otild be provided in
the means neceffaryfoi attaining thi end oj their being, and this
holds efpecialiy as to the rational: But man was made capable of
eternal felicity ; or this is the end oJ his being.

I need fay nothing more to what has been advanced, than
has bsen faid above, I anfwer to the fiiTt propofition, — Be it al-
lowed that God's wifdom and goodnefs required that the ra-
tional creature tliould be provided in the means neceflary for the
attainment of the end of his being, in his firll make and ori-
ginal Hate: Yet neither God's goodnefs, nor his wifdom, obliges
i.im to reftore man, if by his own fault, he has fallen from that
fuitc, wherein at firil he' was made. Now this is the cafe with
man in his prefent ftate, as we have told above.

if it is laid, that this is but our ailertion, That man is in a
bpfed ftate: I anfwer, i. 1 think it is more than an affertion,
and m'j(t do fo till 1 fee what I have offered for proof of the
foregoing propolitions fairly anfwered. Kay, till I fee the
whole arguments that have heretofore been offered againfl the
fulHcicncy of natural religion, anfwertd. For, I think they
ail prove that m^n is at prefent in a bpfcd fiate. But, 2. I
add, that the Deiils mufl mind, we are upon the defenfive, and
il is their province to prove, that man in his prefent condition
is not fo fituated, as we fay. It was^A' abundanti for clearing
of truth, that I condefcend to prove this. It was enough to me
to have denied that man is new in iris criginal ftate, and put
the proof upon them ; in regard they allirm, and tlie whole
ftrefs and force of their argument !ea:i:i upon that fappofition

which we deny.

Tne

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 353

The fecond argument, on v/hich the Deifts lay much ftrels.
Is drawn from the fuppofed ill-confequences attending our opi^
nion. They pretend, that it is horribly cruel to imagine,
that all the Heathen world were loft. This they inculcate
upon all occafions, rather to expofe their adverfarics, 1 am
afraid, than to confirm the truth. The fum of this argument
we fee propofed by Herbert in his words above quoted. Where
he tells us, that all will own his articles to be good ; Jd fa^
lutem tamen aternam cojnparandam, non fufficere prokibebunt
nonnullim C-^cterum, qui ita locutusfucrit, n£ ills quidcm audax ;
nedum fdvum temerariumq ; effatiivi mea fententid protulerii* •
The (hort of the matter is this, " If natural religion is not fuf-
ficient, we muft give all the Heathen world for loft ; but this is
a cruel and harlh affertion, injurious to God, and cruel to fuch
a vaft number of men." And here they raife a horrible out-
cry. With this they begin, and with this they end.

This argument, although it has no force, as we ftiall evince^
yet makes fuch a noife at a diftance, that a great many ingenu-
ous fpirits feem to be mightily afFe6led with it : I conceive
therefore that it will not be improper to lay open the caufes of
this, and the rather becaufe they difcover where the fallacy of
the argument lies, and whence it is that men are io eafily pre-
poiTeffed in this matter. To this purpofe then it is to be obferved,

I. That there are fome things which in themfelves are not
defirable ; to which therefore no uncorrupted rational nature,
much lefs that of God, could incline merely upon their own
account : which yet, in fome circumftanliate cafes, may be
every way congruous to juftice and righteoufnefs ; yea, and
worthy of the wife and good God. The torment of any rational
creature is not in, or for itfelf defirable : God has no pleafurc
in it. The nature of man, if not deeply corrupted, yea, and
diverted of humanity, recoils at it ; yet there is none, who will
not allow that in many circumftantiate cafes, it is not only wor-
thy of, but plainly necefTary in point of wifdcm and juftice, for
the moft merciful of men, to infiidf upon their fellow creatures
fuch punifhments, as their own natures do (brink at the appre-
henfions of. Nor can it be denied that the holy God, notvvith-

X X ftanding

* De Rel. Gentil. pag. 217. " — Yet fome will think they are not
« fufficient for attaining eternal life. But v.'hoever would fay fo, would
" be guilty of uttering not only a bcid, not to fay a crael and aibitrar^
<< fentence in lay opinion,"

354 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.xviii.

ftanding of, and without prejudice to his innnite goodnefs, may,
nay in Tome cafes niuft, iikewife thus puniih his own creatures.
Now, if fuch things are reprefented as they are, in their own
natures, without a due confideraiion of circumftances and ends
inducing to therri, it is eafy to make them appear not only hard,
but odious,

2. However jurt, righteous and congruous fuch a6^ions are ;
yet he who undertakes to expofe them as cruel, barbarous and
hard, efpecially, if he has to do with perfons, weak, ignorant,
partial in favour of the fufferer, and averfe from the author of
the torment, has a far more eafy tafk, even though he is of weak-
er abilities, and employed in defence of the worfl caufe, than
he who undertakes to defend fuch aiftions. The reafon of this
is obvious ; all that makes to his purpofe, who defigns to ex-
pofe the a6lion as cruel, lies open in its nature and horror to the
thoughts of the mofi inconfiderate ; and if to this he only fets
off the reprefentation with a little art, fo as to touch the affec-
tions, which in this cafe is eafily done, he has carried his point ;
the judgment is not only deceived, but the affe6\ions are fo deep-
ly engaged in the quarrel, as to percludc the light of the mofl
nervous and valid defence imaginable. Whereas on the o-
ther hand, all things are quite otherwife. The circumftances
inducing to fuch aclions, are ufually deep, and not fo eafily
difcernible, and therefore not to be found out, without much
confideration; and when they are found out, they are not eafily
collected, laid together, and ranged in that order, U'hich is ne-
ceffary to (ct the atrocity of the crime in a due light, efpecially
where the perfons who are to judge are weak and biaffed. Be-
fides, the evil of thofe crimes, being for mofl part more fpiri-
tual, makes not fo flrong an imprellion on the afiedlions. And
this confideration holds more efpecially true, where the quef-
tion is concerning the judgments of God, which proceed upon
that comprehcnfive view, which infinite wifdom has of all cir-
cumftances, that accent the evil, aggravate the fault, and en-
hance the guilt of fins comniirted agai nfl him ; many of which
circumftances no mortal penetration can reach. And further,
this more particularly holds true, where it is not God himfclf,
but man that pleads on behalf of the a6\ings of God. It is
very obfervabie to this purpole, that hiftorians of all nations
almoft condelcend upon inilances, wherein the fight of fevcrCf
but jufl punilhmsnt of atrocious offenders has not only excited
the compaffion of the populace to the fuffcrers, but enraged

them

PR1NC1PL.es of the modern deists. 355

them agawjft the judge. Even they who would have been rea-
dy to reclaim a.aainft the partiality and negligence of the judge,
if the crimes had been pallid without juli punifhnient, when they
j'ee the punilbment inflicted, through a fond fort of ccmpaffion
to tlie fufferers, complain of the cruelty of the judge, laying a-
iide all thoughts of the atrocity of the crime.

3. Where they, Vv^ho make it th-eir bufinefs to traduce fuch
actions, as hard and cruel, and they alfo, whom they labour to
perfuade of this, are conne6led by alliance, or common inter-
eft with the fuflerers, are themfelves in the fame condemnation,
or, upon the fame and fuch like accounts, obnoxious to that
juilice, which adjudges thofe fufferers to thefe torments, which
they fludy to reprefent as cruel and barbarous, it is no wonder
to fee the rcprefentation make fuch deep impreffions, and rivet
fucha perfuafion, that the puniinments are cruel and hard, as
may not only bias a little againft any defence that can be made
for the judge, but may even make them refufe to admit of
any apology, or condefcend fo far as to give any that can be
made a fair hearing. But all unbiaffed perfons mufl allow, that
fuch can never be admitted judges competent, as to what is juft
or unjufl, hard or otherwife ; the cafe being, in effefl, their
own, and they by this means being made bpth judge and
party,

4. However great, terrible and heavy any punlfhment that
God is fuppofed to inf]i6t, may in its own nature appear, or how
great foever the number of the fufferers may be, yet we can
never, from the feverity of the puniflim.cnt, or the number of
the fut?ercrs, difprove its juRIce, unlefs we can make it appear,
that no circumflances, which can poiTibly fall under the reach
of infinite v/ifdom, cap render fuch feverity towards fo many
perfons, worthy of him. Now, however eafy this undertaking
may appear to perfons lefs confederate, it will have a far other
afpe<Si to fuch as impartially ponder, that ail men are manlfeflly
partial in favour of thofe of their own race, and in a cafe which
is, or may be their own, and have no fuitable apprehenfions of
the concernments of the divine glory in it, or no due regard for
them : Befides fuch is their fhallownefs, that they can neither
have under view many important circumflances, that are fully
cxpofed to all-comprehending wifdom, nor can they fully un-
derftand the weight, even g^ befe circuniu:inccs,tliat they either
doj or may, in feme meafure know.

5. Every

2s6 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xviii,

5. Every man, who is wife and juft, when either he hears cf,
or fees any punifhment that appears very fevere and terrible,
mud fufpend his judgment as to the hardfliip of it, till the author
of it is fully heard as to the inducemerrts, and neither ought he to
deny what his eyes fee, his ears hear, or he is otherwife inform-
ed of, upon fufficient evidences. He is neither h^ queflion the
jmattcr of fa61, nor condemn the judge of cruelty, becaufe cf the
feeming feverity of the punlfhment. This is a piece of ccmmcn
juftice, which every judge, even amongR men, may reafonably
claim from his fellow creatures, although his actions and the rea-
sons of them, cannnot be fuppofed to lie fo far out of their ken,
as thofe of the divine judgments: Much more is it reafonable
for men to pay this deference to God, confidering how unable
the moi\ elevated capacities are to penetrate into all the reafons,
which an infinitely wiib God may have under view ; and there
is the more leafon for this, fince man alfo is naturally fo very
apt to be partial in his ovv'n favour, and to fail of giving a due re-
gard in his thoughts unto the concernments of divine glory.

Thcfe obfervations, as they are in themfelves unqueOionabiy
true, fo they do fully lay open the caufes of that general accept-
ance, which this plea of the Deifis has obtained with lefs atten-
tive minds ; and how little weight is to be laid upon them. In
a vvord, if they are well confidered, they are fufficient to ener-
-vate the force of this whole plea.

But leafi the DeiOs (hould think their argument flighted, or
that confciouinefs of our own weaknefs, makes us choofe long
weapons to fight with, I fnall clofely confider the argument.
Perliaps v^hat makes a nolle, at a dillance, will be lefs frightful
If we take a nearer view of it. We deny that the Heathen
world had means fufficient for obtaining eternal happinefs. The
Deifis fays, this is cruel and rci/Ii, Let us now fee whence this
may be proven.

I. Doth our cruelly lie in ibis, That we have laid down an
aiTertion, upon which it follows, that in fact all the Htatheii
world are loji? But now, do not the Deius own, that in very
dc^d, all impenitent finnners muft perifn ? No doubt they do,
who talkfo much of the nece.jjity of repentance. Well, are not
ail who want revelation, guilty of grofs (ins? Is not idolatry a
grofs fin? are tliey not all plunged in ihcgtiilt of it ? Socrates,
the mofl confiderable perfon for his virtue, that lived before
Chrifl, cannot be excufed. He denied his difowning the gods
cf Athens. He joined in their worfliip. If this was againlt

his

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 357

his confcience, the more was his fault. And, even with his dy-
ing breath, he ordered a cock to be facrificed to Efculapius.
Epicletus, the beft perhaps among the philofophers who lived
after Chrift, in h\s Enchindion, enjoins to worfhip after the mode
of the country where we live ; and no doubt pra6^ifed as he
taught. Gentlemen, condefcend, if ye can, upon one, who was
not guilty of grofs fins. Did they repent ? What evidence
bring you of it ? That the multitude lived and died impenitent,
none dare queftion. That there was one penitent none can
prove. That the beft of them were guilty of grofs fins cannot
be denied, ^nd there is no evidence of their penitence. Yea,
there is no reafon to think that they looked upon repentance as
a virtue; but much to the contrary. Weil, gentlemen, do not
your own principles conclude, that the bulk of the Heathen
world are, in fa6t inevitably loft ? And that there is but little
ground of hope, and great reafon to fear, that it fared not much
better with the few virtuo/i 9

2. But doth the cruelty lie in the number of the perfons fup-
pofed to be loft ? No. This cannot be faid. For if the caufe
be fufficient, the number of the condemned makes not the con-
demnation the more cruel. Befides, let them go as narrow-
ly to work as ihey can, they are ^^.w, very fetv, for whom they
can plead exemption : and their pleas for that handful will be
very lame. So that for any thing I fee, the Deifts, in this re-
fpedl, are not like to be much more merciful than we.

3. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this. That we fuppofe them
condemned without a caufe, or without one that is fufficient.
But this we do not, we fuppofe none to be condemned, who are
not finners againft God, and tranfgreffors of a law ftamped with
his authority, which they had accefs to know. And were not
the heft of them guilty of grofs fins ? What evidence have we of
their repentance ? Is it not juft, even according to the Deifts*^
principles, to condemn impenitent finners? Thus we fuppofe
none condemned, but for their fins.

4. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this. That we fuppofe them
all equally miferable; Socrates to be in no better cafe than Nero.
But this follows not upon our affertion. None are fuppofed mi-
ferable beyond the juft demerit of their fins.

5. Weil, perhaps the cruelty lies in this. That we fuppofe
their torments after this life to be intenfe in degree, or of a
longer continuance than their fins deferve. This we are fure
pf, that their fins being offences againft God, deferve a deeper

punifhment

358 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xvin.

puni'tliment, than fome men can well think of; and that God
15 ju'i, and will proportion puniihments exa611y to offences,
and have a juft regard, as well to the real alleviations as aggra-
vations of every fin. And if God has, in his word, determined
that every fin committed againd him, deferves eternal punifh-
ment, no doubt his judgment is according to truth* We are
not judges in the cafe.

6. Well, but the rafhnefs and cruelty perhaps lies here, That
by our affertion we are obliged to pafs a pofitive and peremptory
judgment about the eternal flate of all the Heathen world, that
they are gone to hell, and laid under everlafting punifhments,
leaving no room for the mercy of God. Bat to this we fay, re-
velation has taught us, even where there is the jufteft ground
of fear, to fpeak modeflly of the eternal condition of others, and
to leave the judgment concerning this to the righteous God, to
whom alone it belongs, and who will do ?w iniquity. That all
the Heathen world deferve punifhment, cannot, without impu-
dence, be denied. That God will pafs any of them v/ithout
inflicting the punifhment they deferve, neither revelation nor
reafon give us any ground to think. That none of them (hall
be punilhed beyond their defervings, fcripture and reafon de-
monltrate. But in thefe things our affertion of the infufficiency
of natural religion is not concerned. It obliges us to pafs no
judgment further than this, " That the Heathens, and all who
** want revelation, had no means fufficient to bring them to e-
** ternal happinefs, and that confequently they had no reafon
** to expe6t it ; and we have no reafon to conclude them pof-
** feffed of it." And in this cafe we leave them to be difpofed
of, as to their ftate, after this life, by the vvifdom and juftice
of God.

7. But perhaps the cruelty lies in this, That they are fuppo-
fed to want the means neceffary to attain eternal happinefs,
while yet they are capable of, and expofed to eternal mifery
for their fms. But, i. How will the Deifls' prove, That God,
without a promife, is obliged to give man eternal happinefs for
his obedience? 2. Since none of them are to be punilhied beyond
the jull demerit of their fins, may not God righteouily inflict
that puniflimenf, whatever it is, that their fins, in ftridt juilice,
deferve, though he had never propofed arevv^ard, which reafon
can never prove our beft actions worthy of, even though we had
continued innocent? But, 3, That man, in his prefent cafe, has
io[l the knowledge of eternal felicity, and the means of attaining

it,

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS- 359

it, and is unable (o attain it, is owing not to any defe6l of
bounty and goodnefs of God, much Jefs of juftice; but only
unto the fin of man, as has been demonftrated in our anfuer to
the foregoing argument, by rcafons drav/n from nature's light.
Notwithftanding of which, it muft fiill be owned, that nature's
light cannot acquaint us, how man fell into his p'refent lament-
able condition, as we have above made appear.

8. But is it not fafer and m*ore mode(i, may fome fav, to
fuppofe, that God of his great mercy did, by revelation, com-
municate to fome of the befi; of the Heathens, who improved
nature's light to the greateft advantage, what was further necef-
fary to their falvation, or, at leaft to bring them into a ftate of
happinefs, of fomewhat inferior degree to that which is prepar-
ed for Chriftians. I know many Chriftian writers of old and
of late have multiplied hypothefis of this kind : Some have fup-
pofed apparitions of angels, faints, nay damned fouls and de-
vils ; of which ftories I am told that Collius difcourfes at large
in the fecond book of his treatife De Animabiis Paganorum**
Some tell us, ** That to fuch of them as lived virtuoufiy, God
always at fome time or other fent fome man ©r angel favingly
to illuminate them f." So the Areopagites. Some tell us of
Chrift's preaching to them in purgatory, fo Clemens Alexan-
drinus ; fome will have them inftrudled by the Sibylls, as the
fame author fays elfewhere ; fome talk of their commerce with
the Jews, in which way no doubt fome of them came to faving
acquaintance with God ; others fay, that upon their worthy
improvement of their naturals^ God might and did reveal Chrift
to them and fptrituals, becaufe habenti dabiterX* So Arminius.
And of this Herbert frequently intimates his approbation, but
with an evident contradidion to, and fubverfion of his whole
i\oxy about the fufficiency of natural religion. Befides, the
bottom of this is a rotten Pelagian fuppofition of a merit in their
good works : and that habenti dabiter, fpoken of in another
cafe, after all the pains fome are to ftretch it, will not reach this
cafe : and after all we are left in the dark, as to the way where-
in they will have fupernaturals communicated to them. The
late ingenious author of the Conference with a Theijiy fuppofcs
a place provided for the fober Pagans in another world, where-
in they Ihall enjoy a confiderable happinefs $, and wrefls what

our

* De coelefti Kierar. Ch. g. + Strong. Lib. .6.

X « To him that hath fnall be given.**
§ Nicol. Cofi/er. P^rt 2, pag. go.

3^0 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap, kvirii

our Lord fays to his difciples, John xiv. 3. of tht rnany inaU"
fions that are in his Father 5 houfe, to favour his notion. But
now as to all thefe fuppofitions and others of the fame alloy,
however their authors may pleafe themfelves in them, I think
they are to be rejefted. Nor is this from any defefl of chari-
ty to the Heathens, but becaufe they are fupported by no foun-
dation, either in fcripture or reafon. However fome of them
are poffible, yet generally fpeaking, none of them have the
countenance fo much as of a probable argument. The fcrip-
ture proof, adduced by that laft mentioned ingenious author^
has no weight in it. There is no countenance given to it
from the context, nor any other place of fcripture, and I can-
not approve of his boldnsfs in i^rctching our Lord's words be-
yond what his fcope requires. But thefe things have been con-
lidered at length by others, whom the reader may confult **
All thefe fuppofitions are at beft but ingenious fancies, where-
with their authors may pleafe themfelves, but can never fatisfy
others. Nor can they be of any advantage to the Heathens.
I think I have made it fufficlently appear in the foregoing
difcourfe, that they wanted vicans fufficient to lead them \o fal"
vatiorif and fo had no ground to fupport a reafonable hope of
it. It is granted even by thofe, whofe peculiar hypothefis in
divinity lead them to be moll favourable to the Heathens, that
they had no Jederal certainty of falvation ; and for any unco-
venanted mercy j of which fome talk, I know nothing about it.
Scripture is filent. Reafon can determine nothing in it ; and
therefore difputes about it are to be waved. It is unwarantable
curiofity for men to pry into the fecrets of God ; thiyigs that art
revealed do belong to us. Where revelation (iops we are to flop.
Even Herbert himfelf dare carry the matter no further than a
may be ', and what may be, may oct be.

C H A P.

See Anth. Tuckney, Appendix to his Sermon on A^s iv, 12.

FRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 361

CHAP. XIX.

Wherein Herbert's Reafons for publifJiing his Bdoks in Defefice
of Deif?n are examined and found weak,

r HE learned Herbert, toward the clcfe of hisbook Be Re^
ligione Laici^ to juftify the publication of his thoughts, as
to a catholic religio??., common to all mankind, mentions fevetl
fuppofed advantages of this opinion, or fo many pleas for De-
ilm. What weight there is in them, we fhall now confider.

He introduces himfelf with a proteftation that he publillied
not his book with any ill defij^n againft Chriflianity, which h6
honours with the title of optima rcligio : But on the contrary
fays, That he aimed at eftablilhing it, and intended to ftrength-
en true faith, " Benique me aniino adeo non optima religioni in*
** fenfoy aut a vera fide alieno traBatum hunc edidijfe tejior ; ut
** utramquefiatuminare in animoJmhuerim^ i &c.

I (hall not dive into his defigns ; for which he has long ago
accounted unto the only competent Judge. But of the defign,
or rather tendency of his books, we may fafely judge. And as
to this I fay, that if it h granted, that the fcriptures arc the only
flandard of the Chriftian religion, which cannot modeHly be
denied ; I (hall upon this fuppofitiort undertake to maintain a-
gainll any who will defend him. That his books aim at the ut-
ter fubveriion of the Chriilian religion, that his principles over-
throw entirely the authority of the fcriptures, and are not only
inconfiftent with, but dellrudive to the effentials of ChriRianity.
And I further add, that this is every where fo obvious in his
writings, that it will require a flrange flretch of charity, to be-
lieve our author could be ignorant of it.

Our author having told us what was not his defign, proceeds
next to condefcend upon the reafons inducing him to alTert this
common religion. And

I. He teiis us that he maintains this common religion, " Q^itod
** provid&ntiam divinam^ &c. Becaufe it " vindicates the univer-

Y y *« fal

* Herbert Relig. Laici, pag. 28.—" In fine, I profefs that I have
" publiihed this treatife with a mind fo far from being hoftile to the
" beft religion, oraverfe to the true faith, that I intended to eUablilb
« both."

^2 AN iNQ_UiRY INTO THE chap, xix-

** fal Providence o^God, God's principal attribute, v/hofe dignit}^
*' can never be fufficiently fupported. Neither do any particu-
'* lar reb'gion, or faith (to give you our author's ow^n words,
" Fides quantumvis laxa) maintain this, ib as to reprefent
*' God's care of all mankind, in providing for them fuch com-
** mon principles as thofe contained in our catholick truths."

Here our author teaches two things, and I think them both
falfe. (l.) He tells u.>, " That his catholick religion vindicates
** the univerfal providence of God, or ferves to maintain its
** honour." This 1 think i:\\{^. The foundation of it we have
proved to be not only precarious, but falfe. For we have cleared,
that his five articles did not univerflilly obtain ; and further,
that if they had, they were not fufficient to happinefs. Yea, our
author himfelf, after he has told us, that the univerfal providence
of God cannot be maintained, unlefs vyc fuppofe him to have
provided ail his creatures, in the means neceiTary for obtaining
their happinefs, next informs us that he has provided man in
no other means, fave thefe five articles *. And he further tells
las in his words above quoted, that he dare not pofitively fay
they are fufficient, nor can we be fure of it, fince it depends
upon God's fecret judgments, which we cannot certainly know.f
And we have heard Blount above own, That Deifm is not fafe,
unlefs it be pieced out by fome help from Chrifiianity J. Well,
is this the wav our author aiTerts the honour of divine nniverfal
Providence, firft to tell us, that its honour cannot be maintained
without fuppofing di fufficient religion iinivcr/aliy to have ohtaiw
td, and then to tell us that he is not furej that ever there was
fuch a religion ? Is not this the plain way to bring the univerfal
Providence of God in qucflion?

Again, 2cl]v, Our author teaches, " That no particular reli-
** gion can fupport the honour of univerfal Providence." This
I take to be alio falfe. The Chriftian religion alferts and proves,
that God, who has created all things, preferves them, and go-
verns them in a way fuitable to their nature and circumftances,
and in fo far clears the equity of God's proceedings with the
Heathen world, in particular, as may fatisfy fober men. It
acquaints us, that God did, at firft, provide man in a coveniint-
fecurity fo,r eternal happinefs, and in means fufiicient for obtain-
ing

* DeRel. Laici, pag. i, 4, f De Rel. Gentil. p3g. 217.

X Oracles of Kcafon pag. Hy.

PRINCIPLlS of the MODERxV deists. 363

jng of it; that man, by his own fault, incapacitated himfelf for
the ufe of tbele means, and forfeited the advantage of the cove-
nant-fecurity ; that Gcd, in juRice hath left the Heathen world
under the difadvantcige of that forfeiture; that during the time
he fees meet to fpave them, he governs ihem, in fuch a way as
is fuitable to their Japfed ftate, of which we have fpoke before.
We confefs we are not able to explain all the hard chapters
in the book of Providence, and folve every difficulty relating
thereto ; but this affords no ground for the denial either of
God's^eaeral or fpecial providence. As the difficulties about
God's OiTiaifcience, omniprefence, eternity, &c. will not jufti-
fy a denial of thele attributes, or the exigence of a Deity veRed
with them; fo neither will the difficulties about Providence juf-
tify a refufal of if ; and if this vindication of Providence fail of
giving fatisfadion, I am fure Herbert's will never fatisfy.

What our author adds about his fides guantumvis laxa, which
he fuppofes fome to fland up for, and maintain as a fufficient
religion, I do not v/el underhand, But yet {\nc.c this expref-
iion is very often ufed in the writings of this author, in re-
proach cf particular religions, efpecially the Chriftian, which
lays the greateft firefs upon faith, it cannot be paffed without
fome remark. That which our author fecms to intend by this
fides quaniumvh laxa, 01 *' faith how lax foever it may be," is
a faith that confiils in a general aflent to the truth of the doc-
trines, without any correfpondent influence upon prad^ice. And
he would have us to believe that the Chriftian religion, or, at
leall, Chriftians, do reckon this fufficient to falvation. This
is a bafe and difino^enuous calumny. And our author could not
but know it to be fuch, if \\q was acquainted either with the
fcriptures, or the writings and lives of that fet of Cbrifiians a-
gainfl whom this calumny is particularly levelled, who unani-
moully teach, th:u the faith that is available, is chat which
works by love, and is to be found pnly In liiem who are created
m Ghrift Jcjus to good works. If Herbert was a (iranger
to the o^ne or the other, he was the unmeeteft perlon in the
world to fet up for a judge and cenfurer of them.

2. The next advantage that Herbert condclcends on, cf his
catholick religion, is, Quod prohamfacvJtai&mhomtni infitarum
confer jnationem, ufumaue doceat. Nulla enim datur Veritas c a-
tkolica, qua; non in faro interno defcribitur, vel non illuc Jaltem
nece/fario rcducitar'K That is, " Tl)is alone tcaclies man the due

Vie

* Herberi: Rel, 1 aici, pag. 28.

364 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xix.

** ufe and application of his faculties," But this is only our au-
thor's aiTertion. Chiirtianity is no lefs confiQent with the due
ufe of cur faculties and their application to their proper objecfls,
than our author's religion. It deftroys none of them, lays none
of themaiide, and does violence to none of them ; but reftores,
improves and elevates them to their moil noble and proper ufe.

Our author adds, for a confirmation of his affertion, that
there is no catholick verity, but what either is infcribed in the*
mind, or what may be reduced to fome innate truth. Whether
there is any verity infcribed in the mind In our author's fenfe, I
queftion. Mr. Locke has proven, that there is none fuch, and
in particular has evinced that our author's five articles are not
innate truths, no not according to, the defcription he himfelf
gives of fuch notices. He examines the chara6ters of innate
truth given by ovir author, and undertakes tofhew them not ap-
plicable to his five articles*.

3. Our author tells us, he embraced this catholick religion, '
giiod Zficontr over/a a controxKrfis diftinguat\ , &c. It is need-
lefs to repeat all our author's words here. What he fays is in
fhort this, That " particular religion (and here he mufi be under-
flood to fpeak particularly of Chriftiaoity) contains aitflcre and
frightful doBriiies that prejudge form men oj Jqueamijh Jlomachs
at all religion (and is it to be wondered ar, that men who have
no heart to any religion, are eafily difgufted i) But our author
has provided them with one that will not offend the mod nice
and delicate palate, as Qox\{\'^m%o^ principles univerfally agreed
to ; which he fuppofes fuch perfons will readily clofe with, and
io retain fome religion, whereas otherwife they would have
none.

Here our author evidently defigns a thruft at the Chriftian re-
ligion, and infmuates that it is (lutFed with aujiere and horrid doc-
trines' I know full well what ase the do6kines he particularly
aims at: the doctrines concerning the corruption of mans
nature, the decrees of God, the fail sfatlion of Chriflf are par-
ticularly intended. But if theie doclrines are confidered as
delivered in the fcriptures, or taught by Chriftians according to
the fcriptures, Vv^hat is there olTenfive in them ? What horrid
or frightful ?

I do

* Locke's EiTay en Human. Under. Ro(jk i. Cii. . § 15, 16, 17
18, 19.

f *' Becaufc it dillinguiflies uncontroverted points from thofc which
*< are controverted.'*

PRINCIPLES QF THE MODERN DEISTS. 3^5

I do iadeeti grant, that fpme Chriftians, through their weak-«
Mieis, without any iil-defign, have lo reprerented, or rather mif-
reprefented lome pf theie points, parucuiarly concerning the
decrees of God, as to give oifcace to lober perlbtis of ail per-
luafions. But ^s to this, they, and they ouiy, are to bear the
blame. As for the dccirines, What have they done ? Mud
the fauh of the profeiTors be call on the religion they profefs?
This no reafonabie man will allow to be juft.

I do iikewile acknowledge, that whereas there are different
fentlments among ChriOians concerning fome of thefe points ;
and fome of the contending parties have fo unfairly ftated, and
foully milreprefented the opinions of their oppofers, in the dif-
guife of imaginary confequences, or confcquences, at leaft, de-
nied and abhorred by the rriaintainers of the opinions they op-
pofe, as to give fome umbrage to this, ftartle weak men, and
prejudge them againil religion. This they do to expofe their
adverfaries, and frighten others from the reception of their fen-
timents. For fuch 1 can make no excufe. The practice itfelf
is fcandalouily difingenuous, and can admit of no reafonabie
vindication, and fo fair an occal'ion being given, 1 cannot
pafs it without a remark. A notable inftance of this fort I meet
with in a book juft now come to hand- The ingenious author of
thejiiort Method luith the Deijlsy in a letter dire£fed to Charles
Giidon, newly recovered from Deifm, cautions him againft the
DifTenters , and to enforce his caution, prefents him with fuch an
account of their opinions, *;s is indeed fuited to frighten the
reader. He tells him, that they maintain, ** That God fees no
*' fin in the eledl, let them live never fo wickedly. They
** damn the far greater part of the v.'orld, by irreverfible de-
crees of reprobation, and fay, that their good works are hate-?
ful to God ; and that it is not podibly in their power to be
faved, let them believe as they will, and live never fo religi-
oully; They take away free will in man, and make him a
perfect machine. They make God the author of fin, to

" create men on purpofe to damn them ; they make his

** promifes and threatenings to be of no effe6f, nay, to be a
** fort of burlefquing, and infulting thofe whom he has made
** miferable, which is an hideous blafphemy *." But to what
purpofe is all this faid ? 1. Did not the writer know, That this
is not a reprefentation at all of the opinions m.aintained by the
pifTenters, but of the confequences tacked to them by their ad-

verfaries I
* Letter fubjoined to the Deift's Manuel, pag. 22, 33.

<(

n

366 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.xix.

verfarles? Does he not know, that they deteft and abhor thefe
pofitions as much as he does, that they refufe thefe to be conTe-
quences of them ? Is it then candid to offer that as their opini-
ons, H'hich they abhor, and wFiich ihey will not allow to follow
i^pon iheir opinion? i\gain, 2. Doth not this gentleman know
that the principles to which lie has tacked thefe confequen-
ces, are the very doctrines taught in the artkl^s of the Churck
oj England, unanimoufly maintained by ajl the great men of
that church, till Bi(hop Laud's days; which were preached by
them in the pulpit, taught in the fchools, and upon all occafieng
avouched as the do^lrine of the Church of P.ngland ; and, as
fuch, ro this very day are owned by no inconfiderable number of
that church ? With what jullice then, or ingenuity, can he call
this the doclrine of the DifTenters ? 3. From whom does he ex-
pe6\ credit to this difingenuous account of the Diffenter's opini-
on ? Such as know them, will believe nothing upon the readin<>
of this paiTage ; but that the writer either underftood not the
opinions he undertook to reprefent, or that againfl his light, he
mifreprefented them, and to is never to be credited again, with'
out good proof, in any thing he fays of them. 4. Was it the
author's defign to gain a profelyte to the oppolite opinions? This
1 believe it was. But this is the moft unlucky way of manage-
ment in the world ; for if his difciple is a man of fcnfe, he will
be fhy of believing that fuch moniirous opinions can be receiv-
ed by a body of men, among whom, there mufl: be owned by
their worfl enemies, to be not a few learned and fober. And
if he find himfelf abufed, upon fearch, may he not be tempted^
not only to reje6t this account, but all that he received upon the
fame authority ? When perfons of fenfe, who have been abufed,
are undeceived, they are wont ever after to incline to favoura-
ble thoughts of the perfons and principles they were prejudged
againft ; and to fufpect that caufe of weaknefs, which cannot be
fupported, but by fuch mean and unmanly fhifts, as this of
reprefenting the oppofite opinion. 5. If theadverfe party fhall
take the fame courfe, what a fine work fhall v/e have ? And to
fpeak modefily, they v/ant not a colourable pretence for a re-
tortion. But who fhail be the gainers? Neither of the contend-
ing parties furely : For men will never be beafea from their o-
piuions by calumnies that they know to be unjufi. None will
gain, {^iMi they, wiio are lying at the catch, for pretences \o
countenance them in the reje£\ion of the Chriftian religion. It
is none of my buftnefs to debate this coiitrcverfy with thi? author.

If

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 367

If he has any thing new to advance upon thefe heads, let him
advance it, he will find antagonifts in the Church of England,
able perhaps to cope with him, though the Diiienters Ihould
fail. This gentleman had managed his oppofition with more
modefty and ingenuity, if he had attentively perufed the learned
Bilhop of Sarum's difcourfe on the 17th article of the Church of
England. But I hope this author, upon fecond thou^ghts, when
his pailion is over, will be afhamed of what he has written.

But now to return to Herbert and the Deifts. If we abflra6l
from thefe two abufes, and confider thedo6)rines of ChriPiianity
as reprefented in the fcriptures, or according to them, there is
no ground to charge ihem with any thing frightful, or ofii!
confequence to religion. Yea, I dare be fo bold as to fay. That if
practical religion, confifting in godlinefs, righteoufnefs and fobri-
ety, isany v/here tobefound in the world, it is to be found airongfl
Ihofe, as readily as any where elfe, and in as eminent a degree,
who have been trained up in the belief, and under the influence
of thofe very do6trines, which fome, and particularly Herbert,
would perfuade us to be fo horrid, as to frighten men at once out
of their wits and religion. If it be fald, that this is not owing
to the influence of thefe principles. I anfwer, This, at leaft,
proves thofe principles not inconfiftent with practical religion,
in as much as they, who believe them, are eminent in it ; and,
if we inquire of them, what has influenced their walk^ they are rea-
dy to atteft, that the belief of thefe very truths has had the principal
influence upon that efFe6t ; and to offer a rational account of the
tendency of thefe dodlrines to promote practical religion.

Now we have wiped off the ini'inuated reproach, defigned
by our author, againli the Chridian religion. Let us next con-
fider what there is in this plea. He tells us, His religion con-
(lOs of incontroverted articles, and fo will frighten no body.
But, I. This is not true in fa6\, as we have demonftrated above.
His articles have been controverted. The fufficiency of them
has been believed by very few. Again, 2. Will our author
fay. That nothing is neceflarv, to religion, which is controver-
ted ? Will the Deifts undertake this point ? If fo, their religion
is loft, as is evident from what has been demonftrated above.
3. This no more proves our author's five articles to be a fuffici-
ent religion, than it proves one of them alone (o be fuch. He
who owns no more in religion, but this only, thtrt is a God,
may as well plead, that religion retains only what is incontro-
vertible. But the Deifts' will fay, there are other points neceifa-

rv.

1^58 An INQ^UIRY into TK£ chap. XIX.

ry. Well does not this give mean anfwerto their argument, when
I lav, there are other points neceflary befidcs their fire articles-
4. Whereas he would perfuade us, that no man will fcruple his
his religion : Is not this enough to make any reafcnable man (hy
of admitting it, that its author and inventer dare not fay pofi-
tively, that it is fufficient to ani'.ver the purpofe, for which
it is deiigned, and that others undertake to demondrate, that
if it is trufted to, it will prove afoul-ruining cheat? In a wcrdj
it is not worth the while to calculate a religion for thofe, who
will admit nothing in religion, but what is incontroverted: for^
in fliort, they are for no religion. And I think we have in par-
ticular evinced, that our author's five articles will be too hard
in digeftion for fuch delicate ftomachs.

4, Our author tells us, that he embraced this cathclick reli-
s:ion, Ouod concordus communis fubfhuclionan agaty &c**
That is, in fhort, let all the world agree to the fufficiency of
our auti:or's five articles, and leave all other things to be re-*
jeered or received as trifles, not neceffary to be dlfputed about,
and then there is an end of all the contefts, then there is a
foundation laid for everlafting peace, and the golden age will
be retrieved, Jam redit tt virgOf redeiint Saturnia regnal*

This trifle deferves rather pily than an anfwer. What \ will
all the world agree that this religion is fufficient, while its in-
venter durfi: not fay fo ?

5. He embraced it, ^^ Q^uod authoritatem majeftat&mq -, indu-
** biam religioni, et hierarchic indt pQlid^quz conciliate'' &c^
That is, " becaufe it conciliates refpe6l to religion, to the cc-
" clefiaflical hierarchy, and civil government." Religion will be
refpc6ied, when it requires nothing but what is neceffary. Church
and Hate will be refpeiiled when it punifnes nothing but tranf-
greffions againft incontroverted atticlc?.

But is not this to trifle with a wltnefs ? The weaknefs of this
plea is fo obvious, that I may well fpare my pains in expofing it«
Will it maintain the dignity of religion to confine it to a number
of articles, which for any thing we know, or the Deifls know^
may cheat us of our reward in the end, fince they cannot posi-
tively alfure us of its fuiriciency, and we are pofitively fure it is
not fufficient? Will it maintain the honour of church officers,
to admit a religion, which fubverts the very foundation of all

refpedt
* « Becaufe it lays a foundation for common concord."
f "Now Aftra returns, the reign of Saturn returns."

FRINCIFLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 369

s-erpe6t to them, viz. The divine inftitution of their order? As
for the advantage of it to ihe civil government, the DeiOs may-
offer it to the confideration of the next parliament, and they
will confider whether it is proper to conciliate rcfped to the ci-
vil government.

6. Our author embraced his religion, Q^ucd adeo non violiat
rdigionenii ut ejus fevcritoJein Jli7nulu7n addat. That is, ** It is
•' io far from favouring liberty in fin, that it urges harder to vir-
** tue, (fevere virtue) than revealed religion." There is no
hope of pardon here upon the fatisfa6lion of another. Men
muft work for their life, and when they fail, they muft fatisfy
by their repentance.

Well, but do they, who teach the nece-llity of fatisfa£lion,
exclude repentance ? And if they make both fati3fa6iion and
repentance abfolutely necefiary, though each in its own order
and place, to forgivenefs, methinks they will yet have the ad-
vantage in point of feverity. Again, but what if repentance
will not fatisfy ? If this is fo, and our author feclude all other
fatlsfa6\ion, will not his religion lead men rather to defpair thaa
virtue,

7. Our author*s lafl: inducement was, Oiiod facrarum liUra^
■rum fini ultimo intentioniq quadret J &c. That is, " becaufeihis
*' catholick religion aniwers the ultimate defign of the fcrip-
** tures. All the do<5trine5 taught there level at the efta-
^* bliiliment of thefe five catholick verities, as we have often
" hinted; there is neither facrament, rite or ceremony, there
** enjoined, but what aims (or feems to aim) at the eftabiifli^
** ment of thefe five articles."

8. But is not this a notable jeft. Our author would perfuade
us, That his religion anfwers the great end of the fcriptures,
better than that religion, which the fcriptures themfelves teach.
If our author fays not this, he fays nothing. If the end of the
fcriptures is not good, it is not for the honour of our author's
religion that it agrees with it : If it is good, and the religion
taught in the fcriptures themfelves, anfwcr their own defign
befl:, why then, 1 would chufe that religion, and leave our au"
thor to enjoy his own : If he favs, his anfwers it better, then I
would defire to know where the compliment lies, that he de-
figned to the fcriptures. But I defire to know further of the
Deifts, Whether do the fcriptures teach any thing befides thefe
articles, to be necelfary ? Where do the fcriptures tell that thefe
are fufiicient ? Are divine inditutions, facraments, &c. necef]ary

Z 7. tov/ard

370 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xx.

tov/ard the compaiTTng of the entls of rclij>ion ? If they are not,
how does it commc'id our author's religion, that it quadrates
with the defign of fhefe inrtitutloris? If they are neceirary and
ufefal, this Catholick religion is at a lofs that wants them, I
am lenfibJe our author has cautioned againft this, when he tells
us, That they either do, or feem to aim at fhis. 1 fee old birds
are not caught with chaff. Now 1 have found it. This catho-
lick religion, will really ferve the purpofe, that revealed truths
and inftitutions do only feem to aim at. But after ail, this is
but fay and noX proof And I will undertake to Ihew againft all
the DeiRs under heaven, that the confinement of religion tothefe
five articles, as taught by the light of nature, is not only not
agreeable to the principal defign of the fcriptures, but inconfift-
ent fvith it.

Thus I have confidered the inducements which led Herbert to
embrace this catholick religion, and found them wanting. And
I muit fay, if this noble author had not been itraitened by a bad
caufe, that is not capable of a rational defence, his learning,
which v/as very confiderable, could not but have aHcrded him
better pleas. Chaalcs Blount, in the clofc of hisReligio Laici,
tells us, It was f : r the iair.e reafons he embraced Dcifm, andt
copies after Herbert, with fome little variety. What he has,
th it our author has taken notice of in this place, will occur in
the next chap'er, where rhey are again repeated under another
form. M^n that have little to fay have need to hujkand it -welly
and 77iakc all the itnprovemeni of it that the') can*

CHAP.. XX.

Wherein the Queries offered by Herbert and Blount, for proving
thefujfiaency of thtir fve Articles are examined,

THE learned Herbert in an appendix to hisReligio Laici,
moves fcm.e objections againft hinifelf, but fearing after
he has laid all he can, fome may remain unfatisFied dill, he be-
taki-s himfelf to another courfe, and edavs to difpuje his oppo-
fers into a compliance with his fentiments by (Queries. Of this
iort he propoies feven. Charles Blount concludes his Religio
Laici in the fame method, with this ditFerence, that he has ad-
ded oiher feven que.ies, making in all fourteen, and prefixed
this title, Queries proving the validity oj the five Articles*

The

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 371

The arguments couched in thefe queries, in lb far as they tend
to prove the fuffitiency of this catholick religion, are not new,
but materijily the fame, which we have formerly confidered.
The method is indeed diiferent, more fubtile, and better fuited
to their great defif^n. Diredl proofs are lefs dct^'iv'in^, and their
weaknefs 15 more eafy difcoverabls by vulgar capacities. Que-
ries conceal the weaknefs of arguments, iniangle, perplex and
amufe lefs attentive minds , and by them, the fubtile afferters of
a bad caufe eafe themfelves of the trouble of proving th^ir ill
grounded ailertions, (which yet, by all rules of difputing, be-
longs to them only) and turn it over upon the defender. This
is enough as to the method, to let us lee how fuitable it was to
their purpofe.

The (y.eries propofed by Blount are the fame with Herbert's,
and he adds others which Herbert wants. Wherefore we (hall
confider them as propofed by Mr. Blount. But whereas fome
of them are to more advantage urged by Herbert, we (ball offer
thefe in Herbert's words, that we may overlook nothing, which
has the leafi appearance of force in this caufe.

Query I. " Whether there can be an}'^ other -true God, or
** whether any other can juflly be called opiimus maximus, the
** greatetl and beft God, and common father of mankind, fave
" He who exercifes univeiial providence, and looks fo far to
** the good of all men, as to provide thern in common and fuffi-
** cjent or etfeclual means for obtaining the Itate of eternal hap-
** pinefs after this life, whereof he has implanted a defire in
*' their minds? If the laity or vulgar vvorlbip any other God,
** who does not exeicife this univerlal providence, are they not
•' guihy of fali'e worfhip, or idolatry? And if any one deny this
" common providence, is he not guilty of treafon againfl the
** divine Majefly,'and of a contempt of his goodnefs, yea, and
** of atheifm itfelf?'' Thus Herbert*. Blount propofes the
fame query, but more fhortly, thus, ** V/hether there be any
*' true God, but he that ufeth univerfal providence concerning
" the means of coming to him f."

The delign of this qu-ry is to prove the necelTity of a catho-
lick religion, or a fufiicient religion com:non to ail mankind,
and to fix the black note of atheifm upon all who deny it. The
argument vrhereby this is evinced is rhe very fame, which we
■ have examined aboi'e, as the Deiils' firft and great argument.

What
* Herbert's Relig. Laid, Appendix, pa^-. i, z.
i Bloant Rel, Laid, pa^. ^o.

372 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xx.

What is added ccrscernin^ iinlverfal Providence, we did con-
fider in our anfwer to Herbert's firfl inducement to Dcifm. And
io we might entirely pafs this query as anfvvercd already, were
it not for the feeming advantage given to it by this new drefs,
wherein it appears.

This query has a dire6l tendency to drive men into atheifn;,
and tempt them to lay afide all worfbip for fear of falling info
idolatry. It is in itfelf felf-evident, that if God has given aii
mankind, or to every man, means fuFncienl and etie6iual to lead
them to eternal happinefs, they mud know of it, or, at Icali,
there muft be eafy accefs for them to know it. With what pro-
priety of fpeech can it be faid, That the means leading to eter-
nal happinefs, are given to every man to be by him ufed for
that end, if they know them not, or, at leaR, if the knowledge
of them be not cafily accciTable to all, who will apply theni-
lelves to an inquiry after them ? Nor is it lefs evident. That the
fuitablenefs, eificacy and fufficiency of thefe means, for reach-
ing this end, muft be fufficiently intimated to them. If it is not
io, how can men rationally be obliged to ufe means which they
do not know to be proper for compaffing the end ? With what
courage or confidence can any rational man, with great applica-
tion, over many difficulties, ufe, and all his life continue in
the ufe of means, concerning which he has no affurance, that
they will put him in poiTeffion of the end ? After all his pains
he may mifs the end be had in view. How can any reafonable
foul pleafe itfelf in fuch a courfe? Can it be reafonably thought
worthy of the wifdom and goodnefs of God, to give man the
means of attaining eternal happinefs, and means fufficient, and
yet leave men in the dark as to the l;,,nowledge of this, That
they are deligned for, and fufficient to reach the end for which
they were given ? What can rationally induce men in this cafe,
to give God the praife of his goodnefs, in affording them thefe
means, or to ufe them for that end, for which they were given,
if this is hid from them? It is then evident, That, if God has
afforded all men fufficlent means of reaching eternal happinefs,
tliey muil know this, or, at lean, h.jve eafy accefs to know thefe
means, what they are, and that they are deligned to, proper
for, and will prove eitc6iual to this end. And confequently, if
men find not fuch means, after fearcb, they have evidently rea-
fon to conclude, that God has left them without them, at-
]ea(^, that they want them in their prefent circumflances ; fmce
$fter all their inquires they cannot hnd them, nor cau they dif-

cover

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 373

cover that any means, they know of, will be efFe6^ual to reach
;his end.

This is evidently the condition of man r.t prefent, left to the
mere light of nature. We have proved juil now, That if God
had given thefe fufHcient ineans, every men inuft, at leall, upor*
application, have had accefs to know thern, and to know that
they are fufficient.

But, upon application, they find no fuch matter, and there-
fore have reafon to fufpeci, that God has not gi' en them thcfe
means, if not pofnively to conclude that tliey are without them.
Herbert himfelf glories that he was the firft who found out what
thefe means were. They had efcaped the knowledge and in-
duflry of the moft learned and diligent before liis lime. And
if fo, certainly the vulgar behoved to be at a lofs about them,
"vVhen he has found them, he dare not be pcfitive about their
iufficiency : '* Quam etiam oh caufam, neqiie eafirfficere (adfa-
** iutem, viz. ^t: terna?n J protenus dixeri'mi' i^ysh^*. Yea, he
more than infinuates, that we cannot come to be pofitively af-
fured of their fuBiciency, and fo mud remain in the dark, iince
the determination of this depends upon the fentiments of God,
which are known to none, as he fays. Now when a man (o
learned, fo diligent, and fo evidently prepofTelTed with a ftrong
inclination to favour any means that had a fliew of fufficiency,
found fo much difficulty to hit upon any fuch, and did fo evi-
dently hefitate about the fufficiency of thefe he had found ; mufi:
not the laity, for whom, upon all occallons, he pretends fo
much concern, hefitate more? Yea, have they not reafon evi-
dently to conclude, that there are no fuch means provided for
them ?

But Herbert here teaches them, that none is Xo be acknow-
ledged as the true God, nor worshipped asfuch,who has not pro-
vided every man in efte^^ual and fufficient means for attaining
eternal happinefs. Well may the layman fay, ** I neither
" know, nor can I ever be fatisfied, that I have fuch means;
" yea, I have the greatefi: reafon to think that 1 want them ; if
** the good God had given them, he would not have mocked
*' me, by concealing them, and fo precluding me from the ui'c
** of them ; he would have pointed me to them, and intimated
** their fufficiency, (b as to make it knowable to me, upon ap-
** plication, without which he could never expe(5\ that 1 fhouid

** ui'c

* Herbert de Rel. Gent. pag. 217.

374 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap.xx.

** ufe them : I have therefore reafon to conclude myfelf deftltute
** of them, and fo I will worlhip no God, fince there is none
** that has provided me in the means neceffay to eternal happi-
*' nefs : For if I (hould, 1 would be s;uilty of worfhipping one,
** who is an Idol, and not the true God." Here we fee where
this gentleman's principles mud inevitably lead the poor man,
either to dlre6t atheifm, or to worOiip one, whom he has reafon
vehemently to fufped to be merely an idol, and not the
true God,

Having thus difcovered the dangerous tendency of this query,
I iliall now give adiretl anfwer to it. And to it I fay, That
the God, who makes man, implants in his child's mind a defire
of eternal felicity, intimates to him that he is made for this end,
obliges him in duty to purfue this end, under a penalty in
cafe he fail of it, and yet denies or leaves his child without the
means that are abfolutely neceffiry for compading it, antece-
dently to any fault upon the child's part, will fcarce obtain the
titles of opti7nus maximus, great and goodf ov of a common
Father,

But the God who made man perfe61:, in his original ftate, and
put him in the full poffeffion of all the means that were necef-
fary to obtain that end, whatever it was, for which he was made,
and which he was in duty obliged to purfue, lofes not his inter-
eR in, and unqueftionable right to the title of optimus maximus,
great and good ; nor does he ccafe to be a common Father, and
to a6l the part of fuch an one, if, when his children contrary to
their duty, have rebelled againft him, by their own fault drop-
ped the knowledge of the end, for which they were made, loft
the knowledge of the means, whereby it is to be obtained, put
themfelves out of a capacity of ufing the means, or reaching the
end ; if, I fay, in this cafe, he leaves them to fmart under the
effe6\5 of their own fin, and treats them no more as children,
but as rebels, who can blame him ? Does he not a6t every way
as it becomes one, who by the bed of titles is not merely a fa-
ther, but the fovereign ruler and governor of all his creatures,
to whom of right it belongs to render a juji recommence of re-
ward to every tranfgrelTor ?

Now, this is the cafe, as we have already proven. . If the
Deids will make their argument conclufive, they muft prove
that this is not the cafe with man. And when we fee this
done, we (hall then know what to fay. Till then we are not
much concerned with their query. If they fay, How can this

be?

PRINCIPLES OF THE MQDERN DEISTS. 375

be ? Can men by the light of nature know how this came to
pafs ? I anfwer, that it is not the queflion, Kow it came to be ,
i b ? but, Whether, in fa6t, it be fo ? That it really is thus, 1s
before proven. The Heathens have confcfled it. And though
we fhould never come to be fatisfied, how it came about, yet
that it really is fo, is enough to acquit God,

Nor is God's univerfal Providence hereby everted, he ftill
governs all mankind fuitably to their condition. He rules thofe,
whom of his fovcreign and undeferved grace, he has {ecn
meet to deal with, in order to return to his family, in a way
of infinite mercy and grace. He governs the reft of the world,""
whom in his fovereign and adorable juftice and wifdom, he
hath left to lie under the difmal confequences of their own fin,
in a way becoming their ftate. He provides" them in all things,
that do neceflarily belong to the ends, for v/hich they are fpa-
red. Further, he leaves himfelf not without a witnefs as to his
goodnefs, in that he does good, gives them rain from heaven ,
and fruitful feafons, filling their hearts with food and glad-
nefs* Which is fufficient to (hew his fuperabundant goodnefs,
that reaches even to the unthankful and evil, and gives them
ground to conclude. That their want of what is further necef-
fary, flows not from any defe6\ of goodnefs on his part ; but
from their own fins, of many of which their own confciences
do admonifh them. If God vouchfafes the means of recovery to
any, they have reafon to be thankful to fovereign grace. If
God gives not, what he may juftly refufe, who can in jufiice
complain of him ? They muft leave their complaint upon
themfelves, and acquit God. And while man is continued in
being, it will remain his indifpenfihle duty to v.'orlhip this God,
who made him, fpares him, notwithftanding of his finS, for a
time, punidies him lefs that his iniquities deferve, and confers
many other undeferved favours on him. Nor is he guilty of
worfJiipping an idol in doing fo.

Thus we have anfwered this query : And I might now pro-
pofe to the Deifis a counter query, ** W^hether they, who make
that neceffary to the fupport of the univerfal providence of God,
his goodnefs, and confequently his being, of which no man can
be fure that it really is, which all men have reafon to believe
is not, and which moft men, who have made it their bufinef^
to confider the cafe ferioufly, do firmly believe not to be in
being, may not reafonably be fufpe6ied to defign the overthrow
of thefe attributes of God, and confequently of his very being?"

Thus

lyS AN INCiUIRY INTO THE chap, r.^u

I'liLis Vaniniis endeavoured to cflablifl:] atbeirm: he afcilbes
iuch attributes to God, and enc'eavoured to fix fuch notions of
his perfedions, as could not be admitted, without the overthrow
of other perfections, unqueftionably belonging to him, or own-
ed in any confiftency with realon and experience. For he well
knew, that if once be could bring men to believe God to be
Iuch an one, if he v.-as, they would be brought under a neceffity
of denying, that there was any God,

Query IL ** Whether thefe means appear univerfally other-
** wife, than in our forefaid five catholic articles*?"

Thefe gentlemen think they have, by their firft query, fuf-
ficlently proved, that there m.uft be a catholick religion : Now
they will prove theirs to be it. But I have overthrown the
foundation, and fo the fuper{lru6iure falls. I have evinced,
that there is no fuch catholick fulhcient religion, by reafon and
experience. I hav'e proved that the pretence of its being necef-
fary to fupport the notion of God's providence and good nefs, can
never poffibly perfuade any confideiate man, to believe againft
his reafon and experience, againft the fight of his eyes, and what
he feels within himfelf,that he really is in poffciTion of a fufHcient
religion, without revelation ; and confequently that the urging of
this pretence can ferve for nothing, if not to make men quef-
tion the good nefs and providence of God, and fo his very being,
to the overthrow of all worihip and religion, I have moreover
made it appear, that thefe five articles arc not catholick, and
though they were fo, yet are not fuflicient.

Query III, ** Whether any thing can be added to thefe five
** articles or principles, that may tend to make a man more
** honeft, virtuous, or a better man ?" So Blount f* To this
query Herbert adje6ls a claufe, viz. " Provided thefe articles
** be well explained in their full latitude J." And is not this
tiie principal end of religion ?

hy the foregoing queries the Dcifis' think they have proved
the nccefTuy of a catholick religion ; and that their five articles
is t;-:'s catholick religion. By this query they pretend to prove
tlisir religion fuificient.

Yo this purpofe thev tell us. That their five articles are fuf-
ilcient to make a man virtuous, honeft and good ; that this is
the principal end of religion ; and that nothing can be added to

them,

* Blount Rel. Laici. p??. 90. IJcrb. Rel. Laici, Appendix,
t Ibid, pag. 91. "' ^ % Herb, Ibid.

PRINCIPLES OF THE xMODERN DEISTS. 377

ibem, which can be any way helpful as to this end. If by
making a man virtuous, honeft and good, they mean no more,
than the Heathens meant by thefe words, who took them to
intend no more, but an abftinence from the more grofs outward
a6^s of vice, contrary to the light of nature, with fome regard
in their dealings among men, to the common and known rules ;
of righteoufnefs, and ufefulnefs : If, I fay, this is their mean-:
ing, which I conceive it mufl: be, then I deny that this is the i
principal end of religion. No man that underflands what
religion means, will fay it. The Heathens were influenced to
this by other motives, than any thing of regard to the authority
of the One true God. Their Ethicks, which enjoined this
goodnefs, virtue and honeOy, prefled it by confiderations of a
quite different nature. Of God, his legiflature, his laws, as
fuch, they took little or no notice of, as we obferved from
Mr. Locke before ; and therefore, whatever ufefulnefs among
men there was to be found in their virtues, they had nothing
of religion, properly fo called, in them.

But if by making a man honeft, virtuous and good, they mean
the making of him inwardly holy, and engaging him in the
whole of his deportment, in both outward and inward a6^s, to
carry as becomes him, toward God, his neighbour and himfelf,
with a due eye to the glory of God as his end, and a juft re-
gard to the authority of God, as the formal reafon of this per-
formance of duly in outward and inward a6\s : If, I fay, they
take their words in this fenfe, I do own this to be one of the prin-
cipal ends of religion. But then I deny that ever any man, by
their five articles, as taught by the light of nature, or by any o-
ther of the like kind, known only by the mere light of nature,
was in this fenfe, fmce the entrance of fin, made virtuous and
good. Nay, the moral Heathens were not led to that Ibadow
of virtue and goodnefs, which they had in the fenfe before-
mentioned, from any regard to thefe five articles, as they are
articles of religion ; that is, as they are principles diretStive as
to the duty, which man owes to the One only True and Su-
preme Being.

And taking virtue, goodnefs, and honefty in this laft; fenfe,
which is that alone wherein we are concerned, 1 have above
proven the light of nature, and particularly thefe five articles,
as known by it, utterly infufficient to make any man virtuous,
boneft and good. And I have demonflrated not om, but many
things befide what is contained in thefe five articles, however

A a a explained

378 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. xx.

explained to the utmofl advantage that can be done by mere
unafTifted reaibn, to be ahfoiiUely neceffary io the ends of religion.
Nor will what Herbert has adje^:^ted mend the matter, viz.
That his articles mujl be zcell explained in their full latitude,
Thele v>rords, if they have any fenfe, it is ti)is, *^ It is not e-
nough to believe and receive our articles, as in general propofed,
this will make no man good. He muft not only, for inliance,
agree to it, that theie is one Supreme God, and that he is to be
worihipped by a virtuous life, but he muft be acquainted with
all the attributes of this God, neceiTary to be known, in order
to the direction of his pradice, and he mufi underftand and be
fixed as to the nature, meafure and all other necefTary concerns
of thefe virtues that belong to his duty." This is undeniably
the meaning of this exprelTion, and this inevitably overthrov/s
all tliat our author has been building. Were thefe five articles,
in this latitude, univerfaily agreed to? Our author knew the^
contrary. If any man (hould afifert it, it were enough to make
him be hiffed off the ftage, as either brutifhly ignorant of the
world, or impudentiy difingenuous. Well then, our catholick
religion is loll. Again, fmce the explications belong as much
to our author's religion as the articles themfelves, (for without
them he confeffes the articles not fufficient) how ihall the poor
layman ever be fatisfied about them ? Have there not been as
many, and as intricate dlfputes about them, as about the articles
of revealed religion r' Where is now the boafled agreement?
"Where is the uncontroverted religion? What attribute of God
has not been queftipned, difputed and denied ? Have not his
creation of ail thing-i, his Providence, 6:c. which of all others
have the moft remarkable influence upon practice, by many been
denied ? Have not horrid notions of them been advanced by
Ibnie? What will now become of men of fqueamilh ftomachs,
that car. admit of no religion, but one that is fmooth, and has no
rugged coniroverfies in it? Why, poor gentlemen, they mufl:
part with our author's relioion, and fo be, what they were be-
foie, men of no religion. Upon the whole, we fee that this que-
ry, dci^.^wtd to piove the DeifW religion Jiifficient, has proven
it a chimera.

Q^uery IV, *' Vv'^hether anv things that are added to tljefe five
** principles from the doctrine of faith, be not uncertain in
*' their original ?" So Blount *. Herbert to this adds, " That

though
* EloiintRcl. Laid, pao;. g,i.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 379

^* though God be (rue, yet the laity can never be certain about
** revelation : For, (fays lie) how do ye know that God fpake
" thefe words to the propliets ? How do you know that they
'* faithfully repeated or wrole what God fpoke to them, and no
** more? How do ye know that transcribers have performed
** their part faithfully? How do ye know, that that particular
*' revelation made to a particular prieft, prophet or lawgiver,
*' concerns not only ail other priefts and lawgivers, but alio the
** laity? Efpecially, how ihall ye know this, if the matter of
** revelation require you to recede from reafon ? *" And here
we have a proof of the fourth refieGtion, of liis unfair treatment
of the Chriftian revelation, which we made above. Chap. 13.
For either he inHnuates, that the fcriptures teach things contra-
ry to reafon ; and if fo, where was our author's ingenuity when
he called it optima religioy and upon other occafions pretended
fo much refpeci to it? Does not this juflify our charge of difm-
genuity againft him, in the firji reflexion we have made, in
the place now referred to? If he owns, that this is not the fault
of the Chriftian religion, but of other pretended revelations ;
then he juftifies out fourth refletliorii wherein we charge him
with jumbling revel?,tions, true and falfe together, that have,
at leaft, feemingly fair pretences, and thefe that have none ; and
deceitfully charges upon all in cumulo, the faults peculiar to the
worfl:. If this is not enough to perfuade you to the truth of his
proteftation above-mentioned, viz* that he defigned no hurt
to the Chriltian religion, he lias an obfervation, with which he
concludes this query, that will beat the perfuafion of it into
your brains, or elfe of fomewhat befide ; and it is this, in his
own words, " I think it worthy of the layman's obfervation,
>* that there is this difference betwixt the pretended revelations
offered to us, by the lawgivers, and thofe offered to us by
pUcfis, interpreters of the oracles God, (under which no-
tion he takes in all prophets) whether they gave their re-
velations or refponfes for hire, or merely to fet off their own
conceits (five venales five nugivendiij that the revelations,
which the lawgivers pretended they had from heaven, and
promulgated as luch, did ufually make the people more juft
and fociable, or agree better together ; whereas the pretend-
ed revelations of the priefis and prophets, of whatever fort,
V (or in his own words, Oracuiorum inter pr^Uibus five vetinhhui

" JivC:

t Herb, Rel. Laici, Appendix, pag. 3»

o3o AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap, xx,

vJ

** five nugivendis ) did ufuaiiy make the people more unjuft or
** impious, and did divide them among theaifelves *."

Here is a rare obfervation, vvonh gold to the layman. He
may, with more fafety, receive and ule the laws v/hich Lycur-
gus, Solon, and the other Heathen lawgivers pretended they
had from heaven ; and I would add Moles and his writings, but
that I fear our author has caR hirn, becaufe he fet up for an in-
terpreter of God's mind, and, upon fome extraordinary ©cca-
fions, afted the part of a priell : Our author, 1 fay, would per-
fuade him, that he may, with more advantage,, read thele wri-
ting', than thofe of the prophets and apoflles, or any other of
the facred writers, who were not lawgivers. It is true, both
are to be looked upon but as pretended revelations, and fo in
etFect cheats : but the lawgivers beguiled the people to their
sdvantyge ; whereas thefe rogues of priefis, and others who
joined with thcrn, offered cheats that were hurtful to juftice a-
mong men, and the peace of fcciety.

If any fay, I qm wrefting our author's vvords, and that cer-
tainly his comparifon refpe6ts only the Heathen lawgivers, and
Keathcn priefts ; I anfwer, \x this is the meaning, it is alto-
gether impertinent to the defign of the query, which avowedly
aims at this, ** That laymen, living among us, (for i do not
believe our author defigned to fend his book to the Pagans)
can never be fatisficd as to the truth of any particular revela-
tionj" and all his fubordinate queries do dire£lly thruft at the
fcriptures ,• and then he clofes with this obfervation, as of the
greateft moment to the defign of the query. And therefore I can-
not own, tliat I have done any injury to our author, in the inter-
pretation 1 have given of it; but i have fpoke his meaning more
plainly, than he thought convenient to do. The next query
is to the fame purpofe, and therefore v/e (hall propofe it, and
anfwer both. 0,

Query V. " Suppofing the originals true, whether yet they
*' be not uncertain in their explications ; ** fo that unlefs a
** man read all authors, fpeak with all learned men, and
'* know all languages, it be not impoirible to come to a clear
** folution of all doubts?" Thus Blount f. Herbert, in his
fifth query, fpeaks to the fame purpofe, he makes a hue;e out-
cry about the fchifms and fedis that are among us, and tells us

plainly

* Herb. Rcl. Laici, Appendix, pag. 3.
f Blount Rsl, Laici, ubi fupra, pa^, 91.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 381

plainly, that if we will adhere ftifHy to revelation, we muft of
nece(li?y get an injalithle judge^ to whofe deci(ions we muil
iubinit in all things. He endeavours to prove that the fcrip-
tures will not decide the eontroverfy ; and impertinently e-
«ough labours to difprove what none ever aOerted, That mira-
cles wrought by the Vvritcrs will not decide the differences a-
bout the nneaning of their writings. For it is evident this
query only refpecb tlie meaning of the revelation, as the former
did its OTZginal. Howe/er, 1 know who will thank our author
for alTerting the neccfruy of a living infallible judge. If any
think I have wronged ci::r author as to this, let them infpe£l his
book, and they will find I have done him juPvice. But for the
fatisfatiion of thofe who have it not, I (hall fubjoin his own
exprefs words ; he informs the layman, that he can never be
fatished about the meaning of this revelation, about which there
are fo many controverfies, unlefs either he can ** Linguas
** cuntlas edifcere, fcriptores cunBos celebriores perleoerey doc-
** tior&s ttiam, qui non fcripfirunty conjulere; aut aliquis fal-
** tcm controverfiarwn illarum ex coiifenju communi J'mnmus
** conflitueretur judex *•" And then he goes on to prove,
that there is no other poffible way of deciding thefe differences,
ahd coming to the meaning of revelation, but in thefe two
ways pointed at in the v/ords now quoted. The firft is ridicu-
lous, and therefore we muft be Deifts or Papifts.

The defign of thefe queries is obvious. They were afraid
that their arguments might prove weak, which they had ad-
vanced for the fufficiency of their catholick religion ; and now
in efFect, they tell the laity, that if they have a mind to have a
religion at all, they muft clofe with this which the Deifts pre-
fent them. And though we cannot fatisfy you, may the Deifts
fay, in all points, about our catholick religion, yet you muft
reft fatisfied with it : for you can never be fure about revela-
tion, either as to its original or meaning. Men brought to fuch
a ftrait, fince they cannot have fuch a religion as they would
Willi, muft take fuch as they can get.

Thefe queries dire6lly attack revelation ,* and fo belong not
to our fubjeft. The learned defenders of revealed religion

have

* " Learn all languages, read over all the moft celebrated writers,
'< confult the moil learned men, v/ho have not written, or at leaft fome
" fupreme judge of all controverfies muit be appointed by common
" confent."

3S2 AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xx.

have confidered thofe trifles, and repelled the force of them,
I fiiall oniv conf-dcr them, in fo far as they belong to our fub-
]ci\y and offer the few following animadverfions upon tliem.

I. 1 fay, if the layman miift, for the fake of thofe diiriculties,
quit revealed religion, he mull part with the DcilU' catholick
religion upon the fame; account. Herbert has told us, and it
vers indeed ridiculous to fay the contrary, that this catholick
trtUgion is comprehenfive not only of their five articles, but their
cxpiicatioijs. Now, are there not as many, and no lefs intricate
debates about this religion, as about that which is revealed ?
Is not its fufficicncy difputed? Muft not the layman read all
books, converfe with all learned men, &c. before he can reft
fatisfted in it ? Are there not intricate and perplexed difputes a-
bout the authority, extent, ufe, rpatter, and manner of the pro-
mulgation of the law of niture ? Where ihall the layman find
the notices ihat belong to this religion ? Shall he turn inward,
and find them infcribed upon his own mind ? So our author ad-
vifes. But learned men fay, and pretend to prove the con-
trary. And if mod men look into their own minds, they will
either fay with the latter that they are not there ; or complain that
they are become fo dim that they cannot read them unlefs fome
charitable Deifl will afford them his fpe6iacles. But when they
have got them, what fhall they do next for the explications? Are,
the explications written there too? The Deifts dare not fay it.
But thefe likewife are neceffary fay the Deifls, as we have heard
from BJount and Herbert before. Shall the laity confult the
Poftors about their meaning? But do not Do6\ors differ? Do
not the Magi, and not a few learned Greeks, as Zeno an4
Cryfippus, &c. teach Sodomy to be lawful ? Was it not
the judgment of others, that a wife man ought J^a'' /tAi\|.5/v te

KXi (/.oi^-^stVy K(x.i ispiJvKri'jiiv ev KXipM^ fjL'nOsv yxp raTwv Ovcrsi a.ia")(jpov aivxi }

that is, To fleal, and commit adultry and facrilegc upon occa-fions,
for none of thefe things are by nature evil- So Theodorus, as He-
fychius Illuftrius reports in his life *. Does not Arifiippus and
Carneades. with many others, overthrow the whole law of nature,
telling us, that nothing is naturally jufi: or unjuH:, good or evil,
but by virtue of fome arbitrary law ? Has not the fame opinion
been revived, broached and inculcated by Hobbs and others a-
mong ourfelves? Has not Plato long fince obferved in his

Phedoup

* Sec Dr. Owen on the Sabbath, Excrcit. 3. §.13.

Pl^vINeiPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 3S3

Phedortj " That if any one name either filver or iron, prefent-
'* ly all men agree what it is that is intended ; but if they
** fpeak of that which is juft or good, prefently we are at vari-
** ance with others, and among ourfelves." In a word, he
that will cad at revelation, for its controverfies, is a fool to go
over to natural religion, in expectation to be free of contioverfy.
Thus we are at leaft upon a level with the Deifts.

2. If the layman, in defiance of the Deifts' queries, may
reach a fatisfying affurance of the divine authority of the fcrip-
tures, where is then the necf:ffity for his quitting revelation ? It
will quite evanifh. This, I fay, he may have, without trou-
bling his head about impertinent queries of this fort, if he duly
attend to that one, plain and rational dire6iion given by cur
X^ORD, John vii. 17. If any man will do his will, he Jliall
know of the, dodrinc, whether it be of God, or whether I fpeak
of rnyfelf.

The fcrlptures containing a full account of all the concerns
of the Chriftian religion, are exhibited to him, and put in his
hand by the church as a revelation from God, wherein all his
concerns for eternity are wrapped up. I do not plead, that
the teftimony of the church is a fufficient ground for bottoming
his faith. But this I fay, that the teflimony of the church is a
fufficient ground for any man to judge and conclude firmly,
that its pretcnfions are not contemptible, and that it deferves
the moft ferious confideration imaginable. But when 1 fpeak
of the church, to whofe tellimony this regard is to be paid, we
fet afide, as of no confideration, a multitude of perfons, whe-
ther of the clergy or laity, who do, in their praCtice vifibly
contradict the confelTed rules of their religion. Such perfons
are fcarce to be reckoned of any religion, and their terrinjoriV
js of no confideration, either for or againft religion. Nor do
we refirid the notion of the church to the reprelentatives of it,
much lefs to the Church of Rome, that monopolize this narr:e.
But 1 take it for that body of men, of whatever ftation or qual-
ity, who have received, and do a6f anfwerably to the Chrifiian
religion they profefs, in fome good meafure at leafl. Now 1
fay, the teftimony of this church, or body men, deferves great
regard in this matter. If we confider them, There are among
them perfons of untainted reputation, enemies themfelves be-
ing judges. Not a few of them are of unqueftionable judgmenf..
deep diferning, folid learning, and firidl inquiries after truth.
They are not a fe^^ but many. Nor are they confined to one
*. ■ nation

384 AN IInQ^UIRV into THE ghap.xx.

tiation or age, but fuch they have been in all ages, in lali
nations, where Chrinianity has obtained free arcefs. Many
ot them are perfons, whom envy itfelf cannot allege biaO'ed,
by external gain of one fort or of another. They are perfons
of ditFerent, nay crofs civil interefts, and of different out-
ward conditions. Such are the perfons who give this tefti-
n;ony. Again, if we confider their teflimony. They bear
witnefs to the Chriftian religion in all its concerns, its truth,
iufficiencv, ufefulnefs to all the ends of religion, with re-
ipeSt to time or eternity, and its efficacy for beginning, car-
rying on, maintaining, reviving and confummating fuch as
fmcerely receive it, in godlinefs towards God, righteoufnefs
towards men, fobriety ^vith refpe6l to ourfelves ; and that both
as to inward principles and outward acls. Further, if we con-
fider in what way they give in their teflimony, the weight of
it will appear. They bear witnefs to all this, not only by
their words, but by their deeds, living in a conformity to it,
parting with all that is deareft to them for it, cheerfully under^
going the greateft hardOiips, patiently bearing the moft cruel
torments, to the lofs of life itfelf ; and this they do neither upon
mere conftraint, nor on the other hand, from a ralh and inad-
vertent negledl of a due regard to the unqueftionable advantages
of peace, health, iife? and the other good things they part with ;
but they venture upon doing and fuffering freely and of choice,
upon a fober, rational confideration of the advantage of cleav-
ing to their religion, and of its being fuch, as will do more
than compenfate any lofs they can fuiiain for it. Again, they
bear witnefs to the concerns of this religion, as to a thing that
tl'.ev h.ave not received upon bare hear-fay, but upon narrow
fcriitiny, as that whereof they have the experience. They do
not only give this teftimony, when it is new to them, but af-
ter long trial, when they are moll; fedate and compofed, and
when they can expedft nothing of advantage by it, and when
they muft lay their account with contempt, oppofition and lofs.
They give this teflimony in whatever place they are, where it
is honoured, or where it is oppofed. They give it with the
fircatefi concern, and recommend this religion to thofe whom
they would leaR: deceive, even vi'ith th6ir dying breath, when
they dare not diG'emble, and that after a long trial, in the courfe
cf their lives, in the greatel} variety of outward conditions, fuf-
ficient to have difcovered the weaknefs of their religion, if it
had any. They have made choice of this religion, and adhered

to

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 3S5

to it, under the greateft outward difau vantages, who were not
prspoffefled in its favour by education, but prejudged againlt
it ; and they have embraced it, where they had a free choice
to accept or reject it, and advantages to tempt them to a refufa!.
They do not require an implicit belief as Mahometans do, but
proi'oke to experience and trial. Now I dare boldly fay, that
fhis teflimony is a better, more plain, obvious, and every way more
juftitiable ground of rational ailent to the divine authority, truth,
efficacy, and fufficiency of the Chriftian religion, than can be
given for the like aflfent, to any other particular religion what-
ibever. Nay, there is more in this one teftimony, as it is, or
at leall: may be qualified with other circumftances, difcernible
even by the moft ordinary layman, here for brevity's fake omit*-
ted, (the urging of this in its full firength, not being my pre-
fent defign) than can be offered for all the other religions in the
world, natural, or pretending to revelation, were all that can
be faid for them altogether put in one argument. Any reafon-
able man cannot but think his eternal concerns fafer in follow-
ing this fociety, than any other whatfoever : There is not fuch
another company elfewhere to be met with, as might be dc-
monftrated to the convi6\ion of the ftiffeft oppofer. But this J
plead not at prefent, I fay not, that he fhould build his per-
fualion of ChriQianity upon this teftimony. All that I make of
it is this, That he has reafon to confider the fcriptures, as thus
attefied, as a book that has, at leaft, very plaufible preterices to
divinity, a book that deferves ferious perulal, a book that can-
not poffibly have any obvious and unqueftionable arguments of
impofture, and confeqaently, that it deferves to be read through,
and fully heard before it is caft ; and that though there occur in
it fomc things that he cannot prefently underftand, or whofe ufc
and value he cannot take up, he ought not therefore to be pre-
judged againfi: the divine authority of the book upon the account
of them, till, at leaft, it is heard to an end. For, who knows
not, that things which appear incredible, unreafonable, yea
ridiculous, before their caufes, order and defign are underftood,
may, upon acquaintance with thefe, appear convincingly cre-
dible, uieful, and every way reafonable ? This is ail 1 claim of
the layman at prefent, and he deferves not the name of a re?.-
fonable man who will deny it upon fuch a ground. And if the
Deifts had confidered this, we had not been troubled with the
many chiidirn and trifling prejudices, wherewith their Oracics of
Reafon and otiier books are fluffed. Nor could they have been

B b b (liver ted

38^ AN INQUIRY INTO THE chap. xm.

diverted from the ierlcus connderation of the fcriptures, by fuch
pitiful exceptions.

Well, the Icriptures being put into the layman's hand, thus
attefted, he fets himfelf to the perufal of them, and fiich a pe-
rufal as the cafe requires ; looking to God for dire6tion, he tries
the means appointed by them, for fatisfa6lion as to iheir divinity.
While he Is feeking light from God, in fuch a matter, he dare
not expe6i it, if he continue in the negle6l of known duty, or
the commitTion of kiicv/n fin, and therefore he fiudies to avoid
them. He is refoived to follow truth, as it is difcovered, and
to fubfcribe to the fcripture pretenfions, if they give fufficient
evidence of themfeives. Nothing is here refoived, but what is
reafonable beyond exception. In purfuance of this jufl re-
Iblution, he reads them, and upon his perufal, v/hat pafTages
he cannot underfiand, or reach the reafon of, he paffes at pre-
fent and goes on, till he fee further what may be the intention
of them. And he finds in plain and convincing expreilions,
his own cafe, and the cafe of all men by nature, clearly
difcovered, and urged upon him by this book ; the words
pierce his foul, dive into his confcience, and make manifeft
'i\^Q fecrets of his heart, (known to none but God) manifeft his
fins, in their nature and tendency, add all their concern-
ments. His confcience tells him, all this is true to a tiile,-
though he did not know it before, and none other fave the
heart-fearching God, could know v/hat was tranfa61ed within
h\s heart, though overlooked by himfelf. The difcovery not
only carries with it an evidence of truth, which his confcience
lubfcribes to ; bqt the words wherein it is expreffed, bear in
themfeives upon his foul with a light, authority and majefty for-
merly unknov/n, evidencing their meaning and truth, and fil-
ling the foul with unufual and awful imprefhons of the majefly
and authority of the fpeaker. Thus being convinced and judged,
and the Jecrets of his heart made manifcjlj he is forced to faU
down and acknoxvledge, that God is in the word of a truth. And
he is ready to fay, Come fee a book tliat told 7ne all that ever I did
in my life, is not this the book of God ? Thus he flands trcm-
biing under the fenfe of the w^ralh of God, due to him for his
iins. He reads on, and iinds in the fame book a difcovery of
reluf, propofed frequently in plain palfnges. He is urged to an
acceptance of it. The difcovery carries along with it a full evi-
dence Qi \.k\Q fuitahlenefs, excellency , and advantage of the reme-
dy : And by a gufl of its goodnefsi or inward {t.x\it^ he is drawn

to

PRINCIPLES OF TxHE MODERN DEISTS. 387

to an approbation. Upon this approbation the promifed effecls
follow. His fears are difTipaled, his hopes revived, his ibul is
made acquainted with formerly unknown aqd God>becoming
expreffions of the nature and excellencies of God, and going
iViii on every day, repeated experience occur of the jullnefs of
the difcoveries the word makes of himfelf, the authority of its
commands, faithfulnefs of its promifes, the awfulnefs of its
threatnings, none of which fall to the ground. He, In a
word, has repeated experience cf the unparalleled efficacy of
the whole, for the cure of his darknefs, his corruption, &c,
which defpifed other applications; and towards his advance-
ment to a fincere and confcientious regard to ail his duties,
outward and inward, toward God and man.

Let us now but fuppofe this to be the cafe with thic man upon
his perufal of the fcriptures, though with refpe(5t to innumera-
ble fouls, it is more than a bare i'uppofition : upon this fuppo-
lition, I fay, i. The man has the higheft lecurity he can de-
fire, that tliis book is, as to its Tubftance, the very word of
Gpd, as certainly as if it were fpoken to him immediately by
a voice from heaven. This cannot well be denied by any that
underftands this fuppofition. 2. I fay, the man thus convinced
may laugh at all Herbert's queries as Impertinent. He finds
God fpeaking by the word, and owning it for his. He needs
not therefore trouble himfelf who wrote it, or whether they
were honefi men who tranlcrlbed it, or whetl|er they performed
their part, whether it was defigned for him ;^and the like may-
be laid of all his other queries. He will find no occafion for
that dinin61ion htX^ixX traditional or original revelation ^ menti-
oned by Herbert,'and infixed upon by Mr. Locke,* on what de-
lign I leave others to judge. In this cafe, as to the fubftance,
it is all one to him, as if it had not corns through another hand,
nor has he reafon to furpe61-, that God v,'culd permit to creep
into, or Hand in a book, whIcJi for the (vh^Xd^v.cQ ^ he Oill owns
and evinces to be from him, any thing of a coarfer alloy, at
leaft any fuch corruption as might make it unworthy of hirn to
own it, or unfafe to ufe it to the defign it xvas given for : Yea,
he has the ftrongeft fecurity that the perfeciions and providence
of God can afford, to reft fully allured of the contrary. He has
no reafon to be tumbled at paffages that he cannot und^rOand,
or fuch as by others are reckoned ridiculous, but rallier to fav.

witji

* L^jcke's E\Bv on Hum» UnderRand. Book 4. Cap^ 18. i 6, 7, 8\

388 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xx.

with Socrates, in another cafe, " What I underftand I admire,
** and am fully convirrced to be every v;ay worthy of its author;
** and therefore I conclude what I underfiand not, to be equally
** excellent, and that it would appear fo if I underOood all lis
** concerns," Finally, This fuppofition takes off all pretence
of hefitation about tlie meaning of the fcripfurcs, as to what the
man is particularly concerned in. The l^ory of the neceffity
of an infallible judge, is built upon this fuppofition. That the
Icrlptures are lb obfcure in matters neceQarily relating to the
taith and pra6lice of the vulgar, that they cannot be underfiood
by them fatisfyingly, in the nfe of appointed means. This fup-
pofition is palpably falfe, contrary to fcripture, reafon and ex-
perience, as is evinced by our writers againfi the Papifls, who
fYjily confider their pleas, and particularly thofe which Her-
bert and the Deifis have borrowed from them, who may be
confulted hy the reader.

3. Thus far I have made appear, that the layman has the
jufleft reafon in the world to look upon it as his duty, or the
will of God, that he ihould give the fcrlptures fuch a perufaL
2. That in doing his will there is a way, at leaft, fuppofable,
wherein he may reach full fatisfadlion in his own mind, in defi-
ance of the Deifis' queries about the divinity of the icriptures,
and reach the higheft rational fecurity, even that of faith, bot-
tomed upon divine tefiimony, and inward fenfe or experience ;
whicli Herbert himfelf, upon all occafions, truly afferts to be
the higheQ certainty. I Ihali new advance one flcp further, and
aiTert, that this is more than a mere fuppofition, that it is matter
of fa6t, that they, who do receive the fcriptures in a due man-
ner, eipeciaiiy among the laity or illiterate, do find and reft
upon this ground in their perfuafion. Upon this ground it was
alone, that multitudes did at firft receive it, and for it reject
tnz religions they were bred in ; and not as the Deifis imagine,
upon a blind veneration to teachers, piiefis or preachers, whom,
by education, they were taught to abhor : And upon this ground
they fiill do adhere to it, and receive it as written in the fcrip-
tuies. The words of Mr. Baxter, as I find them quoted by
Mr. Wilfon (for 1 have not fecn Baxter's book in anfwer to
Herbert de Veritatc) are remarkable to this purpofe, ** 1 think,
** fiiys he. That in the very hearing or reading, God's Spirit of-
** ten fo concurreth as thai the will iticlf fhould be touched wich
*' an internal guft or ia'our of the goodnefs contained in the
*' doclriije, and at the fame timt the underfianding with an

** internal

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 389

** Internal irradiation, which breeds fuch a fudden apprehen-
** fion of the verity of it, as nature gives men of natural prin-
*' ciples. And I am perfuaded, that this increafed by more
** experience and love, and inward gufls, doth hold moft Chrif-
** tians faftcr to Chrift, than naked reafonings could do. And
** were it not for this, unlearned ignorant perfons v/ere ftill in
** danger of apoftafy, by every fubtle caviller that aflaults
*' them. And I believe that all true Chriftians have this kind
*' of internal knowledge, from the fuitablenefs of the truth and
** gooiinefs of the gofpel to their new-quickened, illuminated,
** fancSrified fouls*." The apoftle tells us, God who commanded
the light to ikine out of darknefsj hath fltined into our hearts, to
give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of
Jejus Chrijh — If the Deift fay. How proves the layman this to
me V I anfwer. That is not the queftion. For the defign of
the Deifts in thefe queries, is ta prove, that the layman cannot
be affured about the original and meaning of revelation in his
own mind, and io muft clofe with their catholick religion. Now
in dire6l contradiction to this, I fay, here is a ground to ftand
upon. And if he has this ground, even a fober Deift muft allow
he has no reafon to be moved from it, but muft fully know that
the doBrines are of God, And fo I have overthrown the defign
of the query. As for the Deifts' queftion, How he proves it to
others ? it is impertinent. It is not reafonable to expe6t, that
every common man can ftop the mouths of gain-fayers. It is
enough for him, if he can give a reafon, which is good, and muft
be owned fuch in itfelf. If the Deift queftions matters of fa6i:,
that he finds matters fo and fo ; I anfwer, A blind man may
queftion whether I fee this paper now before me ; and yet I
have good reafon to believe it is there, though I ftiould fail of
convincing him.

If the Deift fay, I have perufed the icriptures, and found no
fuch efFe6t; I anfwer, in matters of experience one affirmative
proves more than twenty negatives; unlefs the application is in
all refpe6\s equal, and the efFe6l depend upon a neceffary caufe:
For where a voluntary agent is the caufe of the effect, there it
does not neceflarily follow upon the like application. But to
wave this general, which would require more room to explain,
than 1 can allow it in this place, I fay further, to the complain-

er,

* Baxter's Animad. on Herbert de Verii. pag. 155. quoted by M.
J. Wilfon, Scriptures interpreter alTerted, Appendix pag. 20.

590 AN INQ_UIRY INTO THE chap. xx.

er, Have you given the fcrlptiires fuch a perufal, as I have prov-
ed in a way of duty you are obliged to do? Have you ufed the
iT»eans, in fo far, at ieaft, as is poffible for you ? Have you
fought, have 3^ou waited for God's guidance and prefervation
from rnlRake, and from unjuft prejudices againft hini, his works
his word, (if this be fuch) and his ways? Do you carefully iludy
to avoid what may reafonably be thoupjit, even by a confiderate
Heathen, to obflru6i the grant of the ailiflance defired from God?
Do you carefully avoid known fin? Do you endeavour the per-
formance of what you know to be duty? Are you refolved to
follow in pra6\ice where light leads? If you dare not frankly
anfwer, you have no reafon to complain* For my own part, I
am perfuaded, that in fact, none who have done his will even
thus far, have reafon to table a complaint againfl the word.
Others Mdio take a quite contrary courfe,are unreafonable in the
complaint. Difputes about what might be the cafe, upon fup-
poiition of a perfon's doing ail, that in his prefent circumftances
he is able to do, and yet mifs of fatisfa6iion as to the divine au-
thority of the word, until the fubjedl of this queftion be found,
I think not myfelf concerned in, at Ieaft in a controverfy with
the Deifts. It is unreafonable to queftion thefcripture's author-
ity, or the evidence of it, upon fuppofitions that never were in
being, and I am perfuaded, never ihall have a being.

But thefe things I leave. This difpute lies wholly out of our
road. But I have been obliged to this digreflion, in purfuit of
the Deifts' impertinent queries. I fay impertinent, becaufe,
were all granted that is aimed at in thefe queries, it will not a-
vail one rufti, towards the proof of the point the Deifts are on,
viz. the validity of their religion : For were revealed religion
uncertain, is it a good confequence, that therefore the Deifts'
religion is certain ? What I have faid in defence of revealed re-
ligion, I would have to be looked upon only as a digreiiion,
and not as a full declaration of my opinion ; much lefs would I
have this underftood as the fubftance of vvhat can be pleaded on
behalf of that blcfied book that has brought life andvtmnortaitly
to light. This is not the hundredth part of what even I could
fay, were this my fubje6t. And others have faid, and can
plead much more than I am able. Hov/ever, this I owed to the
truth of God, Such as would fee all thefe pretences againft re-
velation, repelled, are defired to confult thofe, who delignedly
treat of this'fubje^t.

There

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 39!

There are other things in thefe queries now animadverted up-
on, that deierve rather contempt than an anfwer. In particular,'
it is fuppofed, as one of the principal foundations of thofe twcj
queries, now under confideration. That a man cannot reach
certainty in his own mind upon foiid grounds, and rationally
acquiefce in it as fuch, unlefs ** he knows all that can be faid
** againfl it, read ail books, converfe with all learned men^
*' «Scc." than which there is not a more extravagant exprefiion in
B(:vis and Garagantua. Admit it, and I (hall demonftrate a-
gainft any that will undertake it, that nothing is certain. I
cannot but admire that fo learned a perfon as Herbert could ufe
fuch an extravagant fuppofition. But what will not a bad caufe
drive a man upon ? 1 his confirms what is ordinarily obferved,
that there is no opinion, however unreafonable, but has feme
learned man for its patron, if not inventor.

We {hall now go on to the reft of the queries, which will be of
more eafy difpatch. That I have dwelt fo long upontbefe two,
is out Of a regard to revelation and its honour, and not from anv
weight in the queries. As for them, this alone had been a fuf-
ficient anfwer, which I propofe in a way of a counter-query^
and conclude with it — *' If a layman that is illiterate cannot be
'* fatisfied as to tlie truth of revealed religion, how doth this
** prove the Deifts' five articles to be a fufficient and good re-
** ligion."

Query Vh *' Suppofing all true in tlieir originals, and in
'* their explications, whether yet they be fo good for the in-
** ftru6\ing of mankir?d, that bring pardon of fin upon fuch
'* eafy terms, as to believe the bufinefs is dene to our hand?"
And,

Query VIL ** Whether tipis dotlrine doth not derogate from
'* virtue and goodnefs, while our beft a6iions are reprefentcd as
** iraperfe<5l and fiiiful, and that it is impoflible to keep the ten
** commandments, fo as God will accept of our acSlionfj, doing
** the beR we can?" Thus Blount gives us Herbert's fixth query
in two.* There is no material difference in Herbert, fave only
that he harps upon the old ftring, and fpends himfelf in bitter
invectives againit the fcripture-do6lrine about the decrees of God,
of which we have faid enough before. And therefore I think it
iieedlefs to burden this paper wiih liis woid?.

" The

* Blount Rel. Laici, pag* 91. 92.

^ip AN INdOiRY INTO THE ciur. xk.

The two former queries (truck at fcripture-revelation itfelf,
thele two ftrike at the matter contained in the fcriptures. And
here there is a double charge laid againft the dodlrine revealed
in the fcriptures, as black as hell can invent, and as faiie as
it is black. The fixth query charges it with favouring fin, by
bringing pardon upon too eafy terms ; and the ieventh charges
It with derogating from virtue.

For an anfwer to both, I might oppone experience* Sin is
no where by any fo oppofed, virtue no where fo fi ncerely cul-
tivated, as among thofe who fincereiy receive the do6lfine of
fatisfaBioHy and believ^e the utmofi as to the ijiahility of man in
his prefent fallen cafe, without fupernatural ailiftance, and
gracious acceptance, to pleafe God. Dare the Dcifts compare
with them in this refpe6t ? If they fhould, 1 know what would
be the iffue, if the judge had confciecce or honefty. A Socra-
tes, Seneca or Plato, defervcs not to be named in the fame day
ivith the meaneft feriousChriftian, that believes thefe do6lrines,
either with refpecl to piety toward God, or duty toward man.

But as to thenrft charge, 1 fay the ground of it is falfe ; the
query is difingenuous and deceitful. The ground of it is a fup-
pohtion, that revelation excludes the neceflity of repentance.
This is manifeftly falfe : both Herbert and Blount knew it to
be falfe ; and could not but do fo, if ever they read the Bible
And the query comparing revelation upon this known mifre-
prefentation, with natural religion, is fhamcfuUy difingenuous.
Let the query be, Whether it is more favourable to fin, to fay,
it is not to be pardoned without a fatisfa6lion to jufiice by Chrift,
and repentance upon our part, as revelation teaches ; or, that
upon our repentance merely, God is obliged to pardon it, as
the Deifts (ay ? Now, I leave it to the Deifls to anfwer this.

As to the fecond charge, revelation derogates nothing from
virtue. It teaches indeed that our bell a6fions are imperfedl,
and he knows not what perfedion means, or what is required
thereto, that will deny it. It teaches that they who are in the
flejli cannot pleajt God. It talks at another rate than Herbertj
ot the condition of finful man, as to acceptance with God. He
gives him a direction, ** Cumbonum pro virili pr^cJiaSf vurce-
** dem a bonitatc ilia Jiipremd pcte^ exige., hah ; quo paBo re-
*' vera fapies**'' 1 hat is, " Manfully perform your duty as
** you can, and (v/hatever fin remain) alk, demand, and have

** your

* Herbert de Vciitate, rag. io8.

PklNClFLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 393

** your reward. This js the way to be truly wife." This pe-
tulent advice the fcripture does not juftify, and fober rcafon re-
probrates. Where i\n interveens, whatever the finncr does, in
way of obedience, I conceive it will be as good wifdom as our
author teaches him, to be very fober with his deijiciuls, Ect
to return : Revelation, by teaching man's inability, doth net
hinder him from virtue; but takes him off from his own ftrength,
which would fail him in the performance, and leads him where
he may get (Irength, and where innumerable perfons have got
ftrength to perform duty acceptably ; and it points to the only
ground, whereon fmful and imperfe61 obedience can be accent-
ed with, or expedt a reward from God.

Q^uery VIIL *' Whether fpeaking good words, thinking
*^ good thoughts, and doing good a6ticns, he not the jud cx-
*' ercife of a man's life ? Or that without embracing the fcrefaid
*' five principles or fundamentals, it be impcffible to keep peace
** among men, that God may be well ferved ?" Thus Blount*.
This is Herbert's feventh and laO query, and he only adds one
claufe to it, wanting here ; *' Whether the layn-an may not
*/ fpend his time better in thcfe exercifcs mentioned, than if lie
** emplcved it in deciding contrcvcrfies he does net under-
*^ fland.f"

The fuppcfsd neceflity for tli^ layman perplexing himfelf with
contrive: r.es, at wliich Herbert lx:rc aims, in cafe he fee meet
to embrace revebtion, we have above weiglied and raft. But
as \o the query itfeif, it is utterly impertinent. For this is the
qucO.ion tiicy fhou'd have propofed, " Whether their religion
*' is fufHcient to bring a man to thefe juR exerciics, and to
*' m-intain peace in fociety r" And not as thev propofe if,
" Whether thefe exercifes be in themfclves good ?" which no-
body denies: let this be the queftion, and v/e anfwer negatively.
For this <ve have given fufScient reafons above.

Oueiy IX, '* Whether the forefaid five principles do ret bcfi:
*' agree with the precepts given in the ten corr;mandrrents, and
** with the two precepts of Jefus Chrii), viz. To love God above
** all, and cur neighbour as ourfelves? as well as with the
** v/ordsof St. Peter, That in every nation he that feareth God,
** and worketh rigUiecuiaels is accepted cf Gcd t ?"

C c c ' This

* Blount Rel. Laic], pag. 92. + Heib. Kck Lajci. Ap.en.

1 Blount, ibid, pag. 92, 93.

394 AN INQ^UIRY INTO THE chap. xx.

This query Is the fame with Flerbert's feventh and laft per-
fuafive to Deifm, vv'hich we have anfwered above. It is fallely
iuppofed that revelati®n teaches, that the knowledge cf the ten
commands, or Cliriil's fummary of them, Is fufficient to falva-
tion. Yea, revelation teaches exprefsly, that no man can prac-
tife them without grace from Chrift, and that there is no other
way of falvatlon but by faith in him. Again, it is falfely fuppo-
ied, that the agreement cf thefe articles with (that is to fay, their
not contradiding) thcfe commands, proves them a fufficient re-
ligion. This argument, if it proves any thing, it proves too
much; for it v/ili prove any one of them alone to be fufficient.
If the Delfts mean, that their five articles, not only are not in-
confiftent with, but fufficient to bring men the length required
by the ten commands, our Lord's fummary of them, or to fear
God and work rigkteoufnefsy as Cornelius did : I anfwer nega-
tively to the queftion, they can bring no man to this. Corne-
lius, of whom Peter fpeaks, had embraced the Old Teftament
revelation. What Peter fpeaks of men of all nation being ac-
etptid with God, relates to the difcovery God had made to him
©f his defign to admit men of all nations promlfcuoufly to accep-
tance with him through the gofpel-revelation : And confequently,
that the opinion hitherto received by Peter and other Jews, of
the continued confinement of revealed religion and its privileges
to Ifrpel, was a miRake. So that this place helps net the De-
ilh, if it is not cut ofi from its fcope and cohefion, or interpre-
ted without refpefl to it. This vvay of interpretation offcrip-
ture is not fafe. I know not where Mr. Blcunt learned it;
but I can tell him where there is a precedent of it— *Matt. iv.
And if the Deiils have a n:ind to follow that precedent, they
liiall not be followed by me.

Qiitry X. *' Whether the doctrine of faith can by human rea-
'* fon be fupnofed or granted to be infallible, unlefs we are in-
*' faliibly aifured, that thofe who teach this doclrine do know
*' the fecret counfels of God ?*"

To this I anhver. That I am fufficiently fecured as to the In-
fallible certainty of the dod^rine, if I have received the fcrip-
tures upon the ground above-mentioned, without fuppofing any
who now teach it, to have any further acquaintance with the fe-
cret counfels of God, than the word gives them.

Q^ucry

* Blount Pvel. Liiiti, pa^. 95.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 395

Q^uery XL " Whether all things in the fcriptures, (befides the
" moral part, which agrees vviih our five principles) luch as pro-
*' phecy, miracles and revelations, depeiiding on the hiHory,
** may not be fo far examined, as to be made appear by what
** authority they are or miay be received *?"

I anfwer, Revelation, in all its parts, is capable to ftand the
tcft of the ftri6\eft trial, provided it be jufr, and managed as
becomes it. But I rauft tell the Deifts one thing in their ear.
That if the fcriptures once evince themfelves to be from God,
i)y fufTicient evidence, they are obliged, upon their peril, to re-
ceive all that it teaches them, though they cannot prove it by
reafon; nay, nor eiiplain it. But what if any revealed do£\rine
be contrary to reafon ? Upon the forgoing fuppontion, this que-
ry cannot be excufed of blafphemy, but is highly impertinent
and unreafonable.

Query XIL ** Whether in human reafon any one may, or
** ought to be convinced by one fingle teftimony, fo far as to be-
** lieve things contrary to, or befides reafon f?"

One Jingle tefiimony is writ in a different chara6\er in the que-
ry, perhaps to give us to underfland, that by it is meant the
tefiimony of the revealer, God» And it cannot reafonably be
underftood of any other : for upon no other fingle Ujlimony favc
that of Godi is an aflent to revelation demanded, or pleaded
for, by thofe he oppofes.

This being premifed, I fay this query confifts, and is made
up of three as impious fuppofitions as can enter the thoughts of
any of the fons of men ; befides that they are mutually deflruc-
tive of one another, i. It fuppofes that the one fingle tefiimo-
ny of God is not a fufficient warrant for believing whatever he
ftiall reveal. 2. It fuppofes that a revelation come from God
may contain things really contradictory to our reafon. 3. \t
fuppofes that the (ingle teilimony of God is not a fufficlent ground
to believe things that are befides our reafon, though they be not
contrary to it, that is, truths, which we cannot prove by reafon,
or about which there are fome difficulties that we cannot folve.
Take thefe three impious fuppofitions out of the query, 'and it
}i:.s no difRculty in it. If once we fuppofe a revelation to be
from God, we mufi; lay afide the fecond fuppofition as impcfTi-
ble, viz. That it can contain any tiling really contrary to reajou
Set afide this, which makes the ({wzxy Jclo dt fe^ defiroy iuelf,

and
* Elcunt Rel, Laid, pag, 9j|, f Ibid, pag. 94.

396 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ghap. xx.

and let the qiieRion be propofed. Whether we may believe upon
thQ Jif?oJe fejiirnony of God whatever does liot really contradict
our reaion, though it contains feme difficulties, which we can-
not folve? And then I fay, it Is impious to deny it,

Ojiery XllL And laflly, ** Whether, if It were granted they
** had revelations, I am obliged to accept of another's revela-
** tion for the ground of my faith? EfpeciaJly if it doth any
** WTxy oppofe thefe five articles, that are grounded upon the
** law of nature, which is God's univerfal magna charta, enait-
** ed by the All-wife and Supreme Being, from the beginning
^' of the world, and therefore not to be deftroyed or altered by
** every whin ling prcclaniation of an enthufiaft *."

This query is of the fame alloy v/ith the former. To it we
anfwer fhortly, The Cbriftian revelation, (in others we are not
concerned) exhibits matters of univerfal concernment, upon
evidence of their divinity, capable to fatisfy thofe who now
live, as well as thofe to whom they M'ere originally made ; and
jfo arc Impertinently called another s revelation. And we are
obliged to receive it as the ground of our faith, and rule of our
]3ra6iice as much as they. The fuppofitlon that is added, that
it contains do6)rines or precepts contrary to the law of nature,
is Impious and falfe. What he adds further about the " whilHIng
proclamations of enthufiafis," if it is not applied to the facred
writers, we are not concerned in It. If it is applied to thepi,
Firjl, It is falfe, that they taught any thing contrary to the law
of nature. Secondly, It is impious to call them, in way of con-
tempt, entliujiajl$ ; or, at leaft, it Is intolerably bold for any
man to call them fuch, before he has proven it ; which he never
did, nor v/ill all the Deirts on earth ever be able to do.
Thirdly, It was rude and unmannerly to treat them with fo much
contempt, efpeclally without arguments proving the charge,
whom the whole authority of the land, all the perfons vefted
with If, and the body of the people, refpedt as men Infallibly
directed of God. Fourthly, It v.as difingenuous to treat them
thus, after fuch pretenfions as our author had made of refpeft to
them, in this and his other books.

Finally, Mr. Blount, inOead of a fourteenth query, concludes
with the teftimony of Jufiin Martyr, as probative of his point.
His words run thus, "Finally, fubmitting my difcourfe to my
*' impartial and judicious reader, I Ihall conclude with the faying

*\ of
* .Blount Rel. Laici, pag, 94,

PRINCIPLES OF THE MODERN DEISTS. 397

'' cf Juftin Martyr, ApoL cont. Tnphon, pag. 83. " That all
" thoie v^ho lived according to the rule of realbn, were Chrif-
** tiaiis, notwiihftanding that they might have been accounte-d
^* as Arheifts ; fuch as among the Greeks were Socrates, Hier-
'* aclitus, and the like; and among the Barbarians, Abraham
*« and Azarias : For all thofe who lived, or do now live, ac-
'* cording to the rule of reafon, are Chriftians, and in an afl'ured
*' quiet condition *,"

As to this teftimony of Juflin Martyr, it is not probative with
us; though we honour the fathers, yet we do not think ourfelves
obliged to fubmit to all their di6tates. This is faid, but not
proven by him, either by fcripture or reafon. And I fear not
to fay, It is more than he or any other can prove. Abraham is
impertinently claffed amongft thofe who wanted revelation ; So-
crates and Hieraclitus, in fo far as they lived according to rea-
i'on, are alTuredly praife-worthy, and upon this account are not
to be reckoned Atheifts. That they were Chriflians I flatly
deny. Nor can it be proven from fcripture or reafon that their
condition is ajfuredly quiet. And further than this I am not
concerned to pafs any judgment about their ftate at prefent ;
What it is that day zoill manifejl*

Blount Rel. Laici, pag, 94, 95.

END OF THE INQUIRY.

A N

ESSAY

CONCERNING THE

NATURE OF FAITHi

O R,

THE GROUND UPON WHICH

Faith affents to the Scriptures:

\V HEREIN

THE OPINION OF THE RATIONALISTS ABOUT IT, IS PROPOSED

AND EXAMINED, ESPECIALLY AS IT IS STATED BY

THE LEARNED MR. LOCKE IN HIS BOOK ON

HUMAN UNDERSTANDING*

Br THE SAME AUTHOR.

AN E S S A Y, &c.

CHAP. I.

Containing fome general Remarks concerning Kn.owledget Faiths
and particular iy divine Faiths and that both as to the faculty
and aElings thereof »

ALL knowledge is commonly, and that not unfitly, refer-
red to the underftanding or intellective power of the
mind of man, which is converfant about truth. Our affent to,
or perfuafion of any truth is founded, either i. Upon the immedi-
ate perception of the agreement or difagreement of our ideas,
and io is called intuitive knowledge. Or 2. It refults from a
comparifon of our ideas with fome intermediate ones, which
helps us to difcern their agreement or difagreement; and this
goes under the name of rational knowledge. Or 3. It leans
upon the information of our fenfes, and this is fcnjihle know^
ledge. Or 4, It depends upon the teftimony of credible witnef-
les. And this is faith.

i'aitk agii'm, if it is founded upon the tePilrnony of angels,
may be termed angelical ; if on the teftimony of men, human;
and if it is founded on the teftimony of God, it is called divine
faith: It is of this lafl; we defign to difcourfe, as what particu-
larly belongs to our prefent purpofe.

When wa fpeak of divine faith, we either mean the faculty
or power whereby we affent unto divine teftimony ; or the af-
fent given by that power. Bpth are fignified by that name, and
faith is promifcuoufly ufed for the one or other*

D d d Faith

402 AN ESSAY CONCERNiNG|

Faith, as it denotes the faculty, power or ability of Our minds
to perceive the evidence of, and aflent to divine teflimony, is
again either ncitural ox J'upernaturat, That naturally v/e have.?-
faculty capable of afl'euling in Ibme fort to divine teflimony, ir,
denied bv none, fo far as I know. BiU that ability whereby we
are at lead habitually fitted, difpofed and enabled to alTent in a
due manner to, and receive with a juft regard, the teiiinnonycl"
God, no iiwn by nature has. This is a fupernaturai gift.

Several queuions i know are moved concerning this abiiily.
It belongs not to my fubject, neither doth my inclination lead
me to dip much in them at prefent, I (hail only fugged the few
remarks enfuing.

1. It feems unquePiionably clear, that man originally had a
pov/er, ability or faculty capable of pcrccivirig, difcerning and
aUbnting to divine revelations upon their proper evidence : For
it is plain, that God did reveal himfelf to man in innocency,.
and that he made man capable of converfe with himfelf. But if
inch a faculty, as this we fpeak of, had been -wanting, he had
neither been capable of thofe revelations, nor fitted for con-
verfe with God.

2. It may moO; convincingly be made out, That all our fa-
culties have fufFered a dreadful fhock, andare mightily iujpaired
by the entrance of fin, and corruption of our natures thereon en-
fuing ; and particularly our underdandings are fo far difabled,
efpeciaily in things pertaining unto God, that we cannot in a
dv.Q manner, perceive, difcern or entertain divine revelations
upon their proper evidence, unto the glory of God, and our
own advantage, unlefs our natures are fupernaturally renewed.
But this notwithflanding, the faculty of affenting to divine tcfb'-
mony is not-quite loft, though it is impaired and rendered unfit
for perfor^^ming its proper work in a due manner. I know none
who alTcrts, that any of our faculties v/ere entirely ioft by the
fall.* In renovation our faculties are renewed, but there is no
v/ord of implanting new ones. It is certain, unrenewed men,
fuch as Balaam and others, have had revelations made to them,
and did affent to thofe revelations. Nor is it kfs cl^ir, that
the devils believe and tremble-

3. Wliether

* '« We cannot conceive how reafon fhould be prejudiced ^by the
*' advancement of the rational faculties of our fjuls with rcfped unto
*f their exercife toward their proper objeds ; which is all we affign
<* unto the work of the Holy Spirit in this m.uter." Dr. O^vcii o-z
ihe Sph-iti- Preface, pag^, 9.

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 403

^. V/hetlicr men, in a (late of nature, whore niirds are not
renc-A^cd, uizy not io far difcern and be affe(Sted by the cha-
raftcrs and evidences of Gcd impreft upon divine revelations,
particularly the fcriptures, where thofe evidences fl;ine brightly,
as thereby to be obliged, and ailuaiiy drawn to give (omQ ibrt
of affent into the teftimony of God, I fhali ndt pcfitively deter-
mine : though the afririnative feems probable to me. The
imprefs of a Deity is no iefs evident on the i'criptures than hiy
other works. He has magnijied this word alDve all his name.
Befides, I do not fee, how the very faculty itfelf can be thought.
to remain, if it is not capable of difcerning any thing of God,
where he gives the moft full and convincing evidence of him-
feJf, as unqucftionably he doth in the fcriptures. Nor do 1
doubt but multitudes of fober perfons, trained up within the
church, and thereby drawn to a more attentive and Iefs preju-
dicial perufal of the fcripture-revelatlon, do, upon fuudry occa-
fions, find their minds aliecled with the evidence of God iri them,
and thereby are drawn to affent to them as his word, though
not in a due manner, and that even where they remain ftran-
gers unto a work of renovation. And i am fure, if it is fo, it
will leave the rejedlers of the fcriptures remarkably without
excufe.

4. Whether fome tranficnt a6l of the Spirit of Gcd is always
neceiTary upon the mind, to draw forth even fuch an alTent, zs
that lad mentioned, I fliall not determine ; that in fome cafes
it is fo, is not to be doubted. The faith of temporary believers
undoubtedly requires fuch an a£\ion as its caufe, and where any
thing of this evidence affecls the minds ofperfonsj at prefent
d^eeply prejudiced, as they were, who were fent 10 apprehend
Chrifl, and went away under a conviction, that 7itver men
[pake as he {lid; there fuch a tranfient work of the Spirit of God
feems neceilary to clear their minds of prejudices, and make
them difcern the evidences of a Deity : But whether it is fo in
other cafes, I fhall not conclude pofitively.

5. But were it granted, That faith, that is, the faculty or
pov.'er of believing, which is nothing tVit fave the mind of rrnn
confidered as a lubject capable of affenting to tefiimony, OiU
remains; and that though wofully impaired, weakened and dif-
abled, it yet continues in {o far able for its proper ofHce or
work, that either by the alTif^ance of fome tranfient operation cf
God's Spirit, breaking in feme meafure the power of its preju-
dices, and fixing it to the confideration of its proper objcdt, or

even

404 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

even without this, upon a more fedate, fober, lefs prejudiced
obfervatlon, it may, though lefs perfecliy, perceive the imprefs
and evidences of God appearing in the revelations he makes of
liimfelf, and that thereon it may be actually io afFefled, as to
fjive fonic fort of aflent, and reach fome convi6lion, that it is
God who fpeaks : Were, I fay, all this granted, it will amount
to no great matter ; fmce it is certain, that every fort of faith
or afTent to divine teRimony, is not fufficient to anfwer our duty,
obtain acceptance with God, and turn to our falvation. Nor is
k fo much of our concernment to inquire after that fort of faith
which fails of anfwering thefe ends ; and therefore I iliall dip
no further into any queftions about any faith of this fort, or our
ability for it.

6. It is more our interefl to onderftand what that faith is,
which God requires us to give to his zoord, which he will ac-
cept of, and which therefore will turn to our falvation ; and
whence we have the power and ability for this faith. Of thefe
things therefore we fliall difcourfe at more length in the next
chapter defigncd to that end.

C II A P. IL

Wlinein the Nalure of that Faithf which in Duty we are obliged
io give to the Word of God, our ohiigation to, and our ability
for anfwaing our Duty, are inquired into,

WE have above infinuated, and of itfelf it is plain, that
every fort of faith or affent to divine tcfiimony anfvvers
not our duty, nor will amount to that regard which we owe to
the authority and truth of God, when he fpeaks, or writes his
mind to us. We muft therefore, in the firfl place, inquire into
the nature of that faith which will do fo. Nor is there any other
w^ay wherein this may better be cleared, than by attending to
the plain fcripture accounts of it.

Nov/ if we look into the fcriptures, we ^mA, I. The apolile
Paul, I TheiT. ii^ 13. when he is commending the TheiTalo-
nians, and bleffing God on their behalf^ gives a clear defcrip-
tion of that faith which is due unto the word of God. For this
caufe alfo, fays he, thank toe God without ceafng, hecaufe when
ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it
not as the word of men; hut (as it is truth) the zuord oj God,

which

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 405

which tffeBually worketh alfo in you thai hdieve. If we advert
to this def'cription, we cannot but lee thefe things in it, Firfi ^
That fonne fpecial fort of alTent is here Intended. The Thef-
iaionians did not think it enough to give fuch credit, or yield
fuch an aflent as is due to the word of men, even the bcfi of
men. Secondly^ In particular it is plain, that fuch an alTcnt is
intended ^ fome way unfwcrs the unquefiionable firmnefs of
the teftimony of the God of truth, which is the ground wherepn
it leans. Thirdly t It is obvious, that fomewhat more is intend -
ed than a mere aflent, of whatfoever fort it is : The words
plainly import fuch an aflent, or receiving of the word of Gcdj
as is attended with that reverence, fubmiflion of foul, refignation
of will and fubje6\ion of confcience, that is due to God, Thh
th.e ufe of the word elfewhere in fcripture firongly pleads for,
and the manner wherein the apoftle exprefles himfcif Itere 13
fufficient to convince any man that no lefs is intended, i, Lels
than this would fcarce have been a ground for the apoflle's
thanhfgiving to God, and for his doing fiiis without cea/in^.
And indeed we find that this exprcflion elfewhere uied iiTspoits
not only people's aflent to, but their confent and appicbaii*< 'i
of the word of God; yea, and their embracing in practice \\\
gofpel, A6ls viii. 14. and xi. I. 2. We are told Heb. >n*. 1,
that it is the evidence of things not Jcen> £aj7%<''^> which we
render- evidence, fignifies properly a convincing de?nonjiration,
Handing firm againfl, and repelling the force of contrary cb-
je£)ioriS. Faith then is fuch an aifent as this, It is a nrm con-
vi6iion leaning upon the ftrongeft bottom, able to fland againO,
and wilhfland the flrongefi^ obje6tions. 3. The apoflle more
particularly defcribes the ground whereon it refls, or what that
demonftrative evidence is, whereon this convit^ion is founded,
and that both negatively and pofitively, i Cor. ii. 5. It (lands
not in the zoifdom of men, but in the pvwer of God. That is,
it neither leans upon the eloquence, nor reafonings; of men, but
upon the powerful evidence of the Spirit's demonflration, as it
is in the verfe before^

Having given this (bort and plain account of faiih from the
fcripture, we maft in the next place prove, that in dutv we
are bound to receive the word of God with a failh of this fort.
Nor will this be found a matter of anv difficulty : For,

I, The fcriptures hold themfelves forth to us as the Oracles cf
God, which ^^/y 7nen ojCyodfpah as they were vicxjedhy the. Spir:t
of God, and wrote by divine infpiration, and the Holy Ghoji is

laid

4o6 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

faid to [peak to us by tkem. Now the very light of natra'c teaches
us-, that whsn God utters oracles, fpsaksand writes his mind to
us, we are in duty bound readily to aiTsnt, give entire credit
to, and rely with the firmed confidence on the veracity of Vn^
fpeaker ; and further, we are obliged to attend to what is fpokca
with the deepeft veneration, reverence and fubjed^ion of foul,
and yield an unreferved pra6lical compliance with every inti-
mation of his mind.

2. The fcriptures were written for this very end, That zie
?mgkt /o believe them as to have life by them, John xx. 30. 31.
And again, Rom. xvi. 25, 26. The fcriptures of the prophets
according to the commandment of the tv&rlafling God, are faid to
he made known to all nations Jor the obedience of faith- Cer-
tainly tken we are in duty obliged to yield this obedience of
faith*

3. The raofi: <3readful judgments, 5^ea eternal ruin, and t];at
of the mofl intolerable fort, are threatened againft thofe, who
do not thus receive the words of God from his fervants, v/hether
by word or writ, is no a.atter. W hofc ever fiall not receive you,
nor hear your zvords, zohen ye depart out of that houfe or city,
Jhake off the du.fl of your feet' Verily I fay unto you, It fhall be
more tolerable Jor the land of Sodom and GomorroJi than for
that city, Matt. x. 14, 15. Accordingly we find the apoftles
preach the word at Aniioch in Fi/idia, A(5\s xiii. demand ac-
ceptance of it both of Jews and Gentiles, and upon their refu-
fal, they teftify againft them in this way of the Lord's appoint-
ment, ver. 51. And all this feverity they ufed without otiering
miracles, or any other proof for their doolrine, fo far as we can
learn, befides the authoritative propofal of it in 1\\q. naaiC oiGod,

4. We find the apoftle* in the words above quoted, commend-
ing the Thefialonians for receiving the v/ord in this manner,
which is proof enough, that it was their duty to do fo.

Tills much being clear, it remains yet to be inquired,
Whence we have power or ability for vieiding fuch an alTent,
whether it is natural or fupernatural ? Now if we confult the
fcripture upon this head, we find,

I. That this ability to believe and receive the things of God
to our falvatlon and his glory, is exprefsiy denied to uarcneu'ed
man, or man In his natural eftate, 2 Thef. iii. 2. Allmen have
not faith : i Cor. ii. 14. The natural manreceiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolijlinefs unto him: Neither
can he know them, becaufe they arefpiniually decerned, John

. ' viii. 47

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 407

vlii. 47 — Ye therefore hear not GocPs words, hecaufe ys are not
of God.

2. This is exprefsl}'- denied to be of ourfelves, and afferted to
be a fupernatural gift of (}od, Eph, ii. 8- By grace are ye
/aved through Jaith; and thai not of yourfdveSi it is the gift of
^God,

3. The production of it is exprefsly afcribed unto God. He it
is xhatfulfiis in his people the work of faith with power , 2 Thei.
i. II. He it is that gives them, that is, thai enables them, on
the behalf of Chrifi to helievt and faff -^r f or his name, Phih i. 29*
It is one of the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. v. 22. And of it
Chriil is the author, rieb. xii. 2. The further proof and vin-
dication of this truth 1 refer to polemical writers.

But here poffibly fome may inquire, How it can be our duty
thus to believe the fcriptures, fmce we are not of ourfelves able
to do fo? In anfwerto this, I (liall only fay, i. The very ligiit
of nature Ihews, that it is our duty to yield perfe6^ obedience,
but yet certain it is we are unable to anfwerto our duty. 2. The
fcriptures plainly require us \o ferve God acceptably with reverence
and godly fear,, and with the fame breath tells us, we mu(i have
grace to enable us to do it, Heb. xii. 28. 3. We have defiroy-
tf^ ourfelves, and by our own fault impaired the powers God
originally gave us, and brought ourfelves under innumerable
prejudices and other evils, whereby the entrance of light is ob-
ltru<51ed : But this cannot re.ifonably prejudge God's right to
demand credit to his word, on which he has imprefi; fufficient
objective evidence of himfelf, which any one that has not thus
faultily loft his eyes, may upon attention difcern. 4. It is
therefore our duty to juftify God, blame ourfelves, and v/ait in
the way he has prefcribed, for ihat grace which is necedary to
enable us ; and if thus we do his will, or at ieaft aim at it,
we have no reafon to defpair, but may expect in due time to
be enabled to underftand and know, whether thefe truths are of
God, or they who fpoke them did it of themfelves, John vii. 17,
Though yet we cannot claim this as what is our due.

From what has hitherto been difcourfed, it is evident, that

this faith, whereby we aflent to the fcripture, is fupernatural,

. or may be fo called upon a twofold account : i. Becaufe the

pov/er or ability for it, is fupernaturally given ; and 2. The

evidence v/hereon it rells is fupernatural.

In this chapter, we have diredlly concerned ourfelves onlv in
the proof of the firfi of thefe, viz. That our ability thus to be-
lieve

4o5 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

lieve is [apernatuYaUy given ; and this has been tlie conflant
doitrine of tiie church of God, which we might conium by tef-
timoniesofall forts, did our defigned brevity allow*.

But our modern Rationaiills do refolutely oppofe this. The
author of a late atheitiical parriphlet, that truly fubverts all re-
Jigicn, ni:iy be allowed to fpeak for all the reft ; for he fays no
more than what they do ^ffent to : He tells us, " That when
** once the myftery of Chrift Jefus was revealed, even human
** reafon was able to behold and confefs it; not that grace had
** altered the eye-fight of reafon, but that it had drawn the ob-
*' jecl nearer to it f." To the fame purpofe fpeak the Socini-
ans ; Schlichtingius tells us, *' Man endued with underftanding
** is no otherwife blind in divine myfteries, than as he who
*' hath eyes, but fits in the dark : remove the darknefs, and
** bring him a light and he will fee. The eyes of a man are
** his underftanding, the light is Chrift's dot^rine." To the
fame purpofe doth the paradoxical Bdgick Exercimtor, that fets
up for phiiofophv as the interpreter of the fcripture, exprefs
himfelf frequeritiy. Nor is his pretended anfwerer Volzogius
diiierently minded ; though he is not fo conflant to his opinion
as the other %*

But thefe gentlemen n-!ay talk as they pleafe, we are not o-
bliged to believe them in this matter. The fcriptures plainly
teaching us, that our minds are blind, our underflandings im-
paired and obfl:ru6led in difcerning fhe evidence of truth, by
prejudices arifing from the enmity of the will, and depravity of
the affections. Nor were it diflicult to demonfl rate from fcrip-
ture, that no man can believe, or underfland the word of God
aright, till, i. The Spirit of God repair this ddzGi of the facul-
ty, or gives vs an under ft an din g^ i John v. 20» 2. Break the
power of that enmity that riles up againft the truths of God as
foollQinefs. 3. Cure the diforder of our aifedtions, that blinds
our minds. And 4. Fix our minds, otherwife vain and unlia-
ble, to attend to what God fpeaks, and th? evidence he gives

of

* See Mr. Wilfon's Scripture*;: oeiuuue Interpreter alTerted. Ap-
pendix, pag. x^, 5. clc.

+ Treatife on Human Reafon, pag. 58. publilhed i674> and to the
credit of die church of England, with an Imprimatur, quoted by Mr.
Wilfun, ubi fupra, pag. 13.

J Wilfon ibid. pag. 7. ii»

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 409

of himfelf. But this is not what we prirtcipaUy defign, and
therefore we Hiall inriH: no longer upon this head : Our prelent
queftion is not about our ability or power to believe, but the
ground whereon we do believe. What has been fpoken of the
former hitherto, is only to prepare the way for the confideration
of the latter, to which we now proceed.

CHAP. HI.

The Ground, or the formal Reafon, whereon Faith afftnts to the
Scriptures is inquired after ; the Rationalifl's Opinion about it,
and particularly as Jiated by Mr, Locke in his Book on Hu-
man Under/landing, is propojld and conjidered-

THOUGH we have fpoken fomewhat concerning our abil-
ity to believe the word of God, and the fupernatural rife
thereof, in the preceding chapter; wherein we have offered our
thoughts of that which goes under the name oi fuhjetlive light',
yet this is not the queftion mainly intended in thefe papers.
That which we aim more particularly to inquire after, is the
ground whereon the mind thus fubjcilively enlightened, or by
the Spirit of God difpofed, fitted and enabled to difcern and af-
fent to divine revelations, builds its affent, and wherein it rejis
falisfied, or acquiefces.

The queftion then before us is this, What is that .;grf?tt«// where-
on, or reafon which moves and determines us to receive ihejcrip'
tures as the zvord of God? What is the formal reafon whereon
our faith refts ? or what is the proper anfwer to that quefiiort.
Wherefore do ye believe the fcriptures to be the word of God,
^nd receive truths therein propofed as the zvord of God, and net
of man ?

It is in general owned by all, who believe the fcriptures to
be a divine revelation, that the authority, truth and veracity of
God, who is truth itfeif, and can neither deceive, nor be de-
ceived, is the ground whereon we receive and affent to propcli-
tions of truth therein revealed.

But this general anfwer fatisfiesnot the queftion : For, though
it is of natural and unqueftionable evidence, that God's tefti-
mony is true, cannot but be fo, and as fuch muft be received;
yet certain it is, that divine teftimony abftra6\ly confidered, can-
not be the ground of osr affent unto any truth in particular :

E e e But

Alo AX ESSAY CONCERNING

But that whereon we mud reil, and whereon our faith muft
Jean, is, ** The teftiiTony of God to it, evidencing itfelf, or as
** it gives evidence of itfelf unto the mind." The knot of the
cjiiel^ion then lies here, *' What is that evidence of God's
*' fpeaking or giving teftimony to truths fupernaturaily reveal-
*•' ed, whereby the mind is fatisfied that God is the revealer?
** Or when God fneaks, or intimates any truth to us, how, or
*' in what way doih he evidence to us, that he is the revealer,'
** what ground is it whereon we are fatisfied as to this precife
*^ point ?"

Now whereas there are perfons of three forts, who may be
called to affent to divine revelations, the queftion propofed may
be confidered with refpedl to each of them.

1. The queftion may be moved concerning thofe perfons to
whom 'he fcripture revelations were originally made ; and as (o
them it may be inquired, When God did reveal his mind unto
the prophe*s, wha^ was th^ii eviclencdf what were thofe rsz.'y.r^pia,
ox certain ji^^aSy whereby they were infallibly affured, that the
propofitions they found impreffed upon their minds, were from
God?

2. As to the perfons to whom they did immediately reveal
thefe truths, it may be queftioned^ What evidences they had to
move them to affent, and ^w^jaith to thofe truths which were
propofed to them as divine revelations? On what ground did
they refl fatisfied, that really they were fo?

/^. Whereas we, who now live, neither had thefe revelations
made to us originally ^ nor heard them from the perfons to whom
they wer-e io given ; but being coraprifcd and put together in
the Bible, they are offeied to us as a divine revelation y and v/e:
are in duiy, upon pain of God's difpleafure in cafe of refufal,
called and required to believe, and ailent to whatever is therein
T^\'c^\td,. as the word of God and not of man -y hereon it may
be moved, What is that evidence which this booh gives of itfelf,
that it is of God, whereon our minds niay reft allured that
really it is fo ?

As to this queftion, in \o far as it concerns the firR: fort of
perfons mentioned, wc {hall not dip m^uch into it ,* all I (hall
i"ay is this, in the words of the judicious and learned Dr. Owen,
*' In the infpirations of the Holy Spirit, and his a6tings on the
*' minds of lioly men of old, he gave them infallible afiurancc
** that it was himfelf alone by whom they were a6ied, Jer.
** xiii, 2S. If any fnali afk by what -vi-.i'^.-n'^ix or infallible xo-

** kens

5S

ae-

THE REASON OP^ TRUE FAITH. 411

^* kens they might know affuredly the infpirations of tiie Koly
** Spin I, and be fatlshed with fuch a periuafion as was uoi Jia-
** hie to i-nlftake, that they were not inipofed upon ? 1 niuil lay
|;>a.niy, That I cannot tell; for thefe are things Vv'hereof we
** bd'e no experience*."

t --re is one thing dropt as to this Riatter by the ingenio-j
Mr '.-^cke, that deferves lome animadvernon. Though he
li' -iOthing pofuively about thofe evidences which the pro-
p; :iad, yet negatively he tells us, that the prophets' ailur-
ar;c- aid not at leaii folely arife from the revelations theoifelves,
.or. rhe operation of the Spirit impreffing them upon their minds,
which he calls the internal light of affurance : But that befide
this, to fatisfy them fully that thole impreflions were from God,
external figns were requifite f; and this he endeavours to prove
from their defiring confirmatory figns, as Abraham and others
did; and from God's giving ilich figns undefired. To this
purpofe his appearance to Mofes in the buOi, is by our author
taken notice of. As to the opinion itfelf, I look on it as hi^ily
injurious to the honour of divine revelation, and I take the
grounds whereon it is founded to be weak and inconcludent :
For, I. Mr, Locke, nor any for him, {Kail never be able to
prove, that thele divinely infpired perlbns always required or
got^ inch confirmatory figns extrinfical to the revelation or infpi-
ration itielf ; yea, it is manifeft, that for mo^ part ihey neither
fought them nor got them. 2. When they did feek or get them,
Mr. Locke cannot prove, that either God or they found them
neccfl'ary for the prefent affurance of the perfon's own minds; as
if that internal light of affurance, to ufe Mr. Locke's words,
had not of itfelf, while it abode, been fuflkient to fatisfy the
mind fully, that it was God who was dealing with it, or reveal-
ing himfelf to it. It is plain, that oihsr reaibns of tlieir deiir-
ingfuch figns maybe affigned. Vv'hen the matters revealed
were things at a diflance, Vvhich required foms ejaraordinary
out-goings of God's power to effe^uate them, in that cafe they
defired, and God condelcended to grant to them fome extraor-
dinary figns, not to aflure them that God was fpeaking unto
them, but to (irengthen their convi^ions of the fufficiencv of

God's

* Dr. Owen on the Spirit, Book 2. Chap, i. §, 10. pag. 104.

•'r Human Underllanding, Eook 4. Chap. 19. §, ij. pag. 50?.
Edition 5 th, 1706.

412 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

God's power, for enabling to do what he required of them, if.it
was difficult, or accomplilhing what he promifed to them in de-
fiance of the greateft oppofition. Sometimes divine revelations
were prcmifes of things at a diftance, that were not to be actu-
ally accomplifhed till after a long trad of time, and ever nwny
intervenient obftru^^ions.; in this cafe they were obliged to be-
lieve thefe promifcs, and wait in the faith of them, even when
that light, that firH; allured them, was gone, and fuch evidences
or figns might be of ufe to enable them to adhere unto the aflent
formerly given upon that fupernatural evidence, that at firft ac-
companied the revelation. Such figns then might be of ufe to
ftrengthen the remembrance of that firft evidence, which they
had when the revelations were firft imparted to them. Thefe and
other reafons of a like nature might fufficiently account for their
defiring thefe figns, and God's giving them : But as has been faid,
we defign not a determination or full decifion of this queflion*
We ihall only confider the queOion with refpe6\ unto the two
1:^(1 fort of perfonso And as to thofe who heard, or had divine
revelations immediately from infpired perfons, our rational di-
vines feem pofitive, that the evidence whereon they aiTented to
to what they delivered as the mind of God, confifted in, or
did refult from the miracles they wrought, and other external
ligns, or proofs, which they gave of their mifi^on from God.
Monfieur Le' Clerk in his Emendations and Additions to
Hammond on the Nevv Teftament, gives us this glofs on i Cor#
ii. 5. *' Paul, fays he, would have the Corinthians believe him,
*' not as a philofopher propofing probabilities to them, but as
*' the meircnger of God, who had received commandment from
** him, to deliver t® them thofe truths which he preached, and,
** that he thus received them, he did fhew by the miracles
** which he wrought." And a lit'.ie after he adds, ** He whofe
** faith leans upon miracles wrought by God's power, his faith
** is grounded upon the divine power, the caufe of thefe mira-
*' clcs." As to this opinion itfeif, I ihall exprcfs myfelf more
particularly juft now : But as to i:\ionfieur Le' Clerk's inference
from this text, he had no manner of ground for it. Let us but
look into the verfe befoie, and there we find the apoftle telling
the Corinthians, that in his preaching he avoided the enticing
words oj maris wifdom^ and delivered his melTage in the de~
monftration of the Spirit, and of power. Upon the back of this
in the 5th verfe, he tells them, his defign in doing fo was, that
ihxiv faith might not fiand in the wifdom oJ men, hut in the power

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 413

^/ God, that IS, on the powerful demonftration of the Spirit
of God, mentioned in the foregoing verfe. How Monfieur Le'
Clark came to dream of miracles, and fetch them in here, whiJe
the fcope and every circumftance of the text flood in the way
of this exi>ofition, I cannot divine ; for nothing is more foreign
and remote from the fenfe of this place. If the author had fol-
lowed the old approved interpreter of fcripture, I mean the
icripture itfelf, and had looked into the foregoing verfe and
context, he had given us a more genuine account : But philofo-
phy now fet up for an interpreter, I had almoft laid a perverter,
did certainly lead him into this violent and ridiculous glofs.
But to come to the matter itfelf.

Miracles can be no otherwife the ground of any alTent, than
as th,ey afford ground for, or may be made ufe of as the medi-
um of an argument, whereby the divine million of the workei:
is concluded and proven. This then mud be the opinion of
thefe gentlemen, That they who heard the apoftles or pro-
phets, could not be fatisfied in their minds, that what they
faid was divinely revealed, until they were convinced of it by
proofs drawn from miracles or figns, wrought by the preacher;
and that this is not merely my conjecture, is evident from the
accounts we have of their opinions and hypothefis, whereof
this is reckoned as a principal one, that the mind of man be-
ing rational, cannot be moved but by a rational imprefiTion,
that is, by the force of efFeaual reafons*. And to the fame
purpofe we fhall find Mr. Locke expreffing himfelf by and by.

Upon this hypothefis, it is evident, i. That if a Heathen
came into a Chriftian affembly, and heard Paul preaching, or
even Jefus Chrift himfelf, if he had never feen them work
any fign or miracle, he would not be obliged to believe their
dodrine. 2. If the apoflles preached to thofe among whom
they wrought no miracles, gave no fuch outward figns, fuch
perfons could not be obliged to believe them, the evidence
whereon fuch a belief is founded being denied. 3. They who
heard them, and faw the miracles, could not be obliged to af- .
fent unto their dodrine, until by reafoning they would have
time to fatisfy themfelves, how far natural caufes might go to-
wards the produaion of fuch effeas, and how far thefe things,
admitting them to be fupernatural, could go toward the proof
of this,— that what they delivered was from God. 4. If there

was
' '^ Spanhem, Elench. Controverfiarum pag. 320. Edition 1694.

414 AN ESSAY CONCERNING ,

was any among them To dull, as not to be capable to judge of
theTe nice points, I do not fee how, upon thefe principles,
they could be obliged to believe. Thefe and the like are no
drained confequcnces ; for it is undeniable, that our obligation
to believe arifes from the ptopofa! of due objective evidence ;
if this is wanting no man can be obliged to believe.

As to us who neither converfed with the infpired perfons,
to whom fuch revelations were originally given, nor faw the
miracles they wrought, we are told b)^ thofe Rational iOs, That
we have hijlorical proof , that there were fuch perlons, that they
wrote thefe revelations which we now have, and that they
v/rought fuch miracles in confirmation of their mifiion and doc-
trine ; and upon the evidence of ihefe proofs we muft reft, they
will allow us no other bottom for our faith. Hence Monfieur Le'
Clerk tells us, *' That whatever faith is this day in the world
^' among Chriitians, depends upon the teftimony of men."

Among many who have embraced this opinion, Mr. Locke
in his Effay on Hiunan Underjlanding, has delivered himfelf^to
this purpofe, and upon feveral accounts he deferves to be ta-
ken fpecial notice of: 1 fliall therefore reprefent faithfully
and fliortlv his opinion, and the grounds ^vhereon it is founded,
and make fuch animadverfions upon them, as may be necef-
i'ary for clearing our way. His opinion you may take in the
enfuing propofitions.

1. When he is fpeaking of the diHerent grounds of aiTent,
snd degrees thereof, he fays, " Beftdes thofe we have hitherto
** mentioned, there is one fort of propofitions that challenge
** the higheft degrees of our afl'ent upon bare tcftimony, whe^
*^ ther the thing propofed agree or dlfagree with common ex-
**' perience and the ordinary courfe of things, or not. The
*' reafon whereof is, becaufe the teRimony is of fuch an one,
*' as cannot deceive or be deceived, and that is of God himfelf,
" This carries with it alfurance beyond doubt, evidence be-
** yond exception. This is called by a peculiar name, revela*
** tion^ and our aiTent to it^ faith: Which as abfolutely deter-
*■ mines our minds, and as perfeftly excludes all wavering as
^* our knowledp;e itfeif *."

2. But notwithflanding, he tells us in the very fame para-
graph, ** Tliat our aflurance of truths upon this teilimony," or
to give his own words, ** Our aiTent can be rationally no high-

*' er
^ liu.iian Ur.deriland. Book 4, Cap, 18. §. 14. pag. 5^4' 5^5*

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 4!^

** er than the evidence of its being a revelation, and that this
** is the meaning of the exprefiions it is delivered in." That
is, as he himfelf explains it, *' If the reafons proving it to be a
** revelation are but probable, our allVirance amounts but unio a
** probable conje6ture."

3. He diftinguiihes betwixt traditional and original revela-
tion. By the latt of thefe, fays he, " I nr.ean that fir(\ imprci-
** fion which is made immediately by God on the mind of any
" man, to which we cannot fet any bounds ; and by the other,
*' thofe impreflions delivered over to others in words, and the
** ordinary w^ays of conveying our conceptions one to another*."
And afterwards fpeaking of immediate or original revtlaiion, he
tells us, ** That no evidence of our faculties by which we re-
*' ceive fuch revelations, can exceed, if equal, the certainty
" of our intuitive knowledge f." And in the preceeding para-
graph, fpeaking of traditio.nal revelation, he tells us, " That
** whatfoever truth we come to the clear difcovery of, from the
^* the knowledge and contemplation of our own ideas, will al-
*' ways be certainer to us, than thofe^ which are conveyed by
'* traditional revelation:]:."

4. He tells us, *' That true light in the mind can be no
^' other but the evidence of the truth of any propofilion," and
hereon he proceeds to tell us, ** That there can be no otlier c-
" videnre or light in the mind, about propofitions that are not
'' felf-evident, fave what arifes from the ciearnels and validity
*' of thofe proofs upon which it is received:" And he adds,
'' That to talk of any other light is to put ourfcives in the dark,
** or in the power of the prince of darknefs 1|.^

5. In the next paragraph he tells us plainly, That there is
no way of knowing any revelation to be fiom God, but by
*' rational proofs : or fome marks in which rcafon cannot be
** miftaken **."

6. In this next paragraph he tells what before we have ta-
ken notice of. That the internal light of alTurance which the
prophets had, was not fufficient to tcftify, that the truths im-
prelTed on their minds were from God, without other figns ft-

Thus far of Mr. Locke's opinion, which in fum amounts to
this, " That that even the original revelations, had not in thei-c,

intrinhck
* Hurr.an Underhand. Book 4. Cap. 18, §. 3. pag. 582.
+ Ibid. §. 5. pag. 583. • : ibid. Eook 4. Cap. 18. §.,4. pag. 5S2.
!| Ibid. Book 4. Cap. 19. L 13. ^'^ Ibid. §. 14. +i Ibid. §. ij.

4i6 AN ESSAY CONCERNlxNG

intrlnfick evidence, fufficlent to affure them on whom fuch im-
preflions were made, that they were from God ; that other fisjns
were neceflary to fatisfy them ; and that others who received
fuch revelations at fecond hand, not from God immediately, but
from infpired perfons, have no other evidence to ground their
affent on, behdes that which refuhs from arc^uments drawn
from thofe figns, whereby they did confirm their miffion ; and
that we have no evidence who fav/ not thefe figns, befides that
of the hiftorical proofs, whereby it is made out, that the per-
fons who wrote the traditional revelations we have, wrought fuch
iigns in confirmation of their miffion from God."

It is worth our while to c^well a little here, and more nar-
rowly confider Mr. Locke's thoughts, and the grounds of his
opinion ,♦ I (liall therefore offer a few obfervations on this doc-
trine.

1. Mr. Locke in his firfl propofition, fpeaks very honour-
ably of divine faith. As to the alTent or a6l of faith, he fays,
** That it is an affent of the hii]^heft degree ; affurance without
*' doubt." As to the ground of it, he fays, *' That it is fuch
" as challenges an afTent of the higheft degree;" that it is
-' evidence beyond exception." Thefe are goodly words. He
Jiasjpoken welt in all that he has J aid, Lwlfl:i that his mean-
ing and heart may be found as good as his words. All is not
gold that glifcerS' Let us then look a little more narrowly in-
to his meaning.

To find it out, we foall fuppofe that God, as no doubt he
did, does reveal immediately to Paul this propofition, Jefus is
the Son of God, Here is a revelation : by Paul it is aflented
10. Weil here is faith. Now in his believing this propofition,
he may be faid to afl'ent to three things, — That what God fays
is true,— That Jefus is the Son of God, — and, That God fays
this to Paul.

Now, I afk Mr. Locke, or any of our Rationalifts that arc
of his mind. To which of thefe three is it that Paul aflents,
with an aiTent " of the higheft degree," and of which he has
" evidence beyond exception?''

i. Could Mr. Locke only mean, that we have the higheft
affurance of this general verity. That God's ttjli many is injalli'
libly trucY No fure. For the afient to this truth is not an ait
of faith, but of intuitive knowledge. The truth itfelf is not a
truth here divinely revealed, but of natural evidence. This is

not

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 417

not Co much in this inftance exprefsly aiTented to, as fuppofed
known.

2. Doth Mr» Locke mean, that we afient to this proportion.
That Jefus is the Son of God? Had Paul ** afTurance beyond
doubt," and ** evidence be3'ond exception," of this? But fure-
ly Mr, Locke knew that Paul, on this fuppofuion, does not
at all afient to the propofition, Jefus is the Son of God ahfo-
lutely, but as it is revealed. Well then, all the evidence that
Paul has to ground Isis afient upon, is the evidence of this.
That God fays Jo to him. If then the evidence of God's fay-
ing fo to him is not fuch as " challenges an afient of the high-
eft degree," Paul cannot have the ** higheft degree of afiur-
ance" of that propofition, the faith whereof leans entirely up-
on his afi'urance of this. That God has revealed it* For as
Mr, Locke fays very truly in that fame paragraph, " Our
*' afl'urance of any particular truth,*that is, the matter revealed,
** can never rife higher in degree than our alTurar^ce of this,
*' that it is revealed." If then Paul has not ** evidence beyond
exception," tliat God reveals the propofition we fpeak of to
him, he can never have fuch afiurance of the truth of the pro-
pofition materially confidered. Wherefore,

3. Did Mr. Locke think in this cafe, that Paul would
have evidence beyond exception, challenging the higheft de-
gree of afient, and thereon afl*urance beyond doubt, or of the
highefi degree, of this^ that God did in very deed lay to Paul,
That Jefus is the Son of God; or of this truth, That Jf us is
the Son of God as revealed. It is the afl'ent to this propofition
that in proper fpeaking is faith. The afient to the general
propofition above-mentioned, is not an a6l of faith ai all. Nor
is the aiTent to the propofition revealed, materially confidered,
an a6\ of faith. Faith in this cafe, is only the afient to that
propofition as revealedt or to the revelation of it. If then,
Paul has not the higheft evidence for, and thereon the high-
efi afi"urance of this, That God fays this to him, his faith can
never be faid to be the higheft degree of afiurance or airenr.
This then Mr. Locke muft mean, or he meaos nothing. But
yet I fuppofe he fcarce thought fo : For, i. He tells us after-
wards, that we can have no evidence for receiving any truth
revealed, that can exceed, if equal, the evidence we have for
our intuitive knowledge. If we have not then evidence, equal
•at leafi to that which we have for our intuitive knowiedfie, for
our belief of God's being the revealer, or that he fpeaUs to us,

F f f we

4i8 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

we cannot have ihe liigbefl degree of alTurance. 2. He after-
wards teiis us, that we have no evidence for this, that this or that
truth is revealed to us by God, but that which refuhs from rea-
fons or arguments, drawn from marks, whereby we prove that
God is the fpeaker: but Mr. Locke owns, that the evidence of
«ll our reafcnings, is ftiil fhort of that which we have for our
intuitive knowledge. Now methinks this quite overthrows
Mr. Locke's goodly conceffion. With what confifiency with
truth or himfeif, Mr. Locke wrote at this rate, is left to others
to judge.

n. Whatever there is in this conceffion yielded in favour of
faith, Mr. Locke afterwards takes care that we who now live
ihali not be the better for it : For afterwards he telis us plainly,
** That whatfoever truth we come to the clear difcovery of,
** from the knowledge and contemplation of our ideas, will al-
•** ways be certainer to us, than thofe which are conveyed by
** traditional revelation." We have no revelation at this day,
but that which Mr. Locke calls traditional. And here it is
plain, that iVlr. Locke thinks that our certainty of any truth we
have from this^ is inferior in degree to any fort of natural know-
ledge, whether intuitive, rational or fenfible.

ilL It is manifell, that the foundation of all is^what Mr. Loc^e
teaches in the fourth pofiiion above-mentioned; wherein he telJs
us, *' That to talk of any other light in the mind, befide that of
** felf-evidcnce, reafon, aad fenfe, is to put ourfeives in the
'' dark." i have added this laft, ** the light of fenfe," bccaufe
Mr. Locke, though he meniions it not here, yet elfewhere he
admits it. That we may undeiftand Mr, Locke's allertion ex-
aCxly, it muft be obferved, that writers, when they treat of this
lubjccl, ufually take notice of a twofold light. There is Jub-
j^Bive lights by which is meant either our ability to perceive,
difcern, know and judge of objc61s, or our a(5\ual knowledge,
afl'ent, &c. Again there is ohjtBive light, by which they mean
that evidence whence our knowledge refults, whereon it is
founded, and which determines the mind to aflcnt or diflent.
Now it is of this laft that Mr. Locke is treating in his chapter
of EnthufiaJMf from whence tins propofition is taken. And his
opinion is this. That there is a threefold objedive light, which
is a real and juft ground for the mind to afient on. There is,
fi'^IK /-{f-emdence^ which is the ground of our intuitive know*
ledge, refulting from the obvious agreement or difagreement of
our ideas, appearing upon firft view or intuition, v/hen they

aie

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITFL 419

ate compared. 5^^^;7^/y, There is rational light, or the evidence
rcluhing from arguments, wherein the agreement or difagree-
ment of our ideas is cleared by affuming intermediate ideas, by
the help of which our mind is cleared, as to what judgment it
is to pafs. Thirdly, There is the light of Jenjt, or the evidence
refultiiag from imprelTions made on our minds by the interven-
tion and means of our organs of fenfe.

But befides thefe, he admits of no other objective light or evi-
dence, that may be a juft ground of affent; and adds, " That
** to talk of any other, is to put ourfelves in the dark; yea, in
♦* the power of the prince of darknefs, and turn enthufiafls.''

This grape muft be preffed, that we may tafte its juice, how
it relifhes. In the confideratlon of this docbine delivered by
Mr. Locke, we fhall not at prefent inquire whether it really does
not preclude all place for faith, properly fo called. This in
the iffue will be further cleared.

But whatever there is as to this, if Mr. Locke's do6lrine
hold, certain it is, that either fairh, if there is fuch a thing,
mull: be founded on one of thofe three grounds of allent, or forts
of objective light, or it is altogether irrational. For an afl'ent
not founded on, and to which we are not determined by real
objective evidence, is brutifh, irrational, and really enthufiaflick,
as being no reafon or ground : And befides thefe three foits of
grounds, Mr. Locke admits of none. Faith therefore muft be
founded either on one or other of them, or it mufl want all rea-
fon for it.

Further, it is to be obferved, That Mr. Locke's taking ^^Vx-
evidence for that which is immediately perceptible without the
intervention of any intermediate ideas, by the natural power of
our intellectual faculties, not affifled, renewed, elev?.ted and in-
fluenced by any fupernatural influence; and taking fenfible
evidence for that v/hich is conveyed by the intervention of bo-
dily organs, from corporeal fubflances, cannot be thought to
make either of thefe the ground of faith to the tefiimony of
God. And therefore it muft have no reafon fave that rational
evidence, which makes the middle fort of objective light. But
1 need not fpend time in proving this, fince it is no more than
what he has taught us in the fifth propornion above-mentioned.

This opinion thus far explained is indeed the fum, and contains
the force of what is pleaded, or, for ought I know, can be
pleaded for the judgment of our Ratlonalifts, We (hall there-
fore

420 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

fore weigh the matter more feriouily, and proceed by fotr.e plain
fieps in the enfuing propofitions.

I. ** If good and folid reafons can be produced for proof of.
*' another fort of obje6live light or evidence, befides thofe three
*' mentioned bv Mr. Locke, it mud be admitted, though we
** (hould not be able to give a fatisfying account of its nature,
** and other concernments."

(i.) This I believe was never denied in the general as toother
things, by any perfon of judgment, adverting to, and under-
flanding what he faid, and why it then ihould be refufed in this
cafe, I can fee no ground.

(2.) If any has ever in general denied this in words, I am
fure every man in facl admits it. Who is he that receives not
many truths, that admits not the being of many things, upon
good proof, from their caufes, eife6is, infeparable adjun6^s, &c.
of the nature of v.-hich he can give no fatisfying account ? We
ail own the mutual influence of our fouls and bodies upon one
another, upon the proofs we have from the effects : But who-
ever underi"iood the manner, how the foul operates on the bo-
dy, or the body upon it ? Inftances of this fort are innumerable,

{3.) Suihcient proofs mufi; always determine our affent; and
if there are fuch in this cafe, it is unreafonable to refufe it.

(4.) If we have fufficient reafons to convince us, that there
is a fourth fort of objedVive light diftin6f from thofe three ad-
mitted by Mr. Locke, and only deny it becaufe we underftand
not, or cannot give a clear account of its nature, I cannot tell,
but on this fame ground we fnall rejet^, and be obliged to refufe
thefe three forts admitted by him, for the very fame reafon.
Mr. Locke perhaps has done as much as any man to explain
them : but were he alive, I believe he vvtould be as ready to
own as any, that he has been far from fatisfying himfelf, or
offering what ma^v^ fully clear others as to the nature of thefe
things,Wherein evidence confifi^ ? What it is? What is felf-evi-
dence, or that evidence which is the ground of wjr fenfible or
rational knowledge? Mow they operate and influenc^vthe affcns?
All his accounts are only defcriptions taken from caufes, ef-
fects or the like. But what obje£tive light or evidence is, where-
in it really conhfts, (and the like may be faid of the reR) 15
as much a myfteiy as it was before, when he tcils us, That felf-
evidence fcX' gr*J is that which is immediately perceived with-
out the intervention of intermediate ideas. Here I learn, that
it is not rational evidcrxe, that requires fuch intermediate

ideas,

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 421

ideas. But this is all I can learn, unlefs it be, that it is per-
ceptibie by the mind, that is, it is evidence. But what evi-
dence is, I am yet to learn. 1 think this propofitlon is plain,

2. ** A fourth fort of objective evidence, different from thofe
** three affigned by Mr. Locke, is not impoffible."

(i.) If any fay it is, it lies upon him to prove it. That
Mr. Locke, or millions more, obferved no fuch light in their
minds, found ihemfelves determined to affent by no other ob-
jective evidence or light, will not prove it impollible ; yea will
not prove, that a6lually there is no fach light ; nay, will not
prove, that there was no fuch light in their own minds. For
Mr. Locke, though he observed as accurately the manner of
his mind, its actings, as mod men, yet might not obferve it fo,
but that he poffibly overlooked fomewhat that pafled there. And
if really Mr. Locke did not affent upon other evidence to fome
things, though he obferved it not, I doubt not but by this time
he is fenfible it was his lofs that it was fo. It cannot be pre-
tended, that it is impoffible for want of a fufficient caufe,
virhile that God is In being, who is author of the three forts of
lights, that are admitted, and who is the Father of lights. Nor
can it be pretended, that the members of this divilion fland
contradid^torily oppofed to one another, as it is in this, Every
being is dependent or independent.

(2.) If any w^ill fay yet, It is impoffible there (houldbe a fourth
or a fifth fort of light or objective evidence, 1 fhall defire him
only to ftay a while, and confider the light of fenfe* It is no-
thing elfe fave ** that evidence that refults from impreffions
** made on our minds by means of our organs of fenfe." Well,
hereon I fhall afk two queflions,

Firjlf Is it not poffible for him who made thofe conveyances
or organs of fenfe, to frame more fuch, quite different from thofe
We already have, and by means of them impart to us other pre-
ceptions, and determine as to affent on the evidence of the im-
preffions conveyed to our minds by thefe other fenfes? If it is
pofiible, as I fee not how rationally it can be queftioned, here
is at ieafl a fourth fort of objedive light determining our minds
to affent, admitted as pojjible.

Secondly^ Here I would inquire. Whether may not He, who,
by thefe bodily organs we already have, impreffes ideas upon
our minds, and determines our affent to their agreement or dif-
agreement, immediatdy icithout the intervention of fuch organs,
iTiake impreffions on our minds, whereby our affent or judg-
ment

422 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

mcnt may rationally be fwayed ? To deny this, will look very
odd und irrational to ibber men, that have due thoughts of God.
If it is admitted, we have here at leaft the pojjibility of another
ground of aiTent,or objedive light, acknowledged, different from
thofe condefcended on by Mr. Locke.

(3.) We that have the benefit of fight, have in our minds a fort
of objective evidence or light, different from all thofe which are
born blind have. And why fhould it be then thought impoffi-
ble that others may have in their minds an evidence that we have
no experience of, and that it may be equally real, convincing,
er more fo than any that we have.

(4.) Mr. Locke grants. That there are extraordinary ways
whereby the knowledge of truth may be imparted to men; that
God fometimes illuminates by his Spirit the minds of men, with
the knowledge of truths ,* that there is no bounds to be fet to
fuch divine impreffions. Now if all this is fo, why may there
not be evidence of a different fort, refulting from fuch extraor-
dinarv impreffions, illuminations, &:c. allowed to be alfo pof-
fible ?

(5.) Either God can reveal his mind fo to man, as to give him
the highefl; evidence or obje6live light that he fpeaks to him,
who gets that revelation, or he cannot, if he can, then there
is pojfible an obje6tive evidence, and that of the higheft fort,
diffeient from thofe three mentioned by Mr. Locke : for that it
mud be different is evident, becaufe Mr. Locke in this cafe will
allow no place for felf-evidence, or that evidence we have in
our intuitive knowledge, which he determines to be the higheft
degree of thefe three forts he has admitted and owned. Speak-
ing of immediate revelation, he fays, '* No evidence of our
** faculties, by which we receive fuch revelations, can exceed,
** if equ^l, the certainty of our intuitive knowledge, as we
** heard above." Since then this evidence of the higheft de-
gree, is difl"'erent from that which we have in our intuitive know-
ledge, (if it is at all) it muft be of a different fort from any of
thofe three ; For by concefTion, it is not felf-evidence ; and ra-
tional or fenfible it is not, becaufe thefe forts of evidence are
of a degree inferior to intuitive evidence. If then it is evidence
of the higheft degree, fince Mr. Locke will not admit it to be
felf-evidence, it muft be none of the three : and fo we have
a fourth fort admitted poffible. But if God cannot reveal his
mind, fo as to give the greateft objective evidence that he
fpeaks, or is the revealer, then I fay, it is plain, and follows

unavoid"

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 423

unavoidably, that God's teftimony can never have from man the
hightft degree of ajfentj which Mr. Locke above exprefsly ac-
knowledged to be its due. It is in vain to fay, that God's tefli-
mony is infallible : for our ailent to any truth upon God tefti-
mony, as Mr. Locke truly fays, can never rife higher, than
the affurance we have of this, that really we have God's tedi-
mony, and take its meaning. If then God cannot give us the
higheft evidence or objedlive light as to this, no truth he offers
can have from us the higheft degree of aflent. To me this looks
like blafphemy, to imagine, that God has made a rational crea-
ture, to whom he cannot fo impart his mind as to give it iuch
evidence as is abfolutely necelTary to lay a ground for entertain-
ing his teftimony with that refpedl, which is its unqueftionable
due. That his teftimony is in itfclf infallible, will never make
our aflent of the higheft degree, unlefs the evidence of his giv-
ing teftimony is of the higheft degree.

3. ** We aflert. That de JaBo there really is a fort of objec-
** tivc evidence or light, different from thofe condefcended on
*' by Mr. Locke."

(i.) The prophets to, whom immediate revelations were
made, had obje6\ive evidence, or light fuflicient to ground the
higheft affurance, that the truths impreffed on their minds
were from God. It is impious to deny it. But this Mr. Locke
will not allow to be fuch evidence as we have in our intuitive
knowledge ; and all muft confefs, that it did not refuit from
their outward fenfes; and that it was not grounded on reafonings
from evidences, marks or iigns, extrinfical to the revelations
themfelves, feems undeniable, or even from reafoning, and
making inferences from what was intrinlical to the revelation.
For, I . We find not, that this perfuafion came to them by fuch
argumentation or reafoning. We can fee no ground from any
accounts we have in fcripture to think, that they took this way
to affure their own minds. Yea, 2. The fcripture-accounfs of
the way of their being convinced, feem all to import, that as
God impreffed the truths on their minds, fo that immediately by
that very impreffion, he fixed an indelible and firm conviction
of his being the revealer. Again, 3. Ws fee, that the evidersce
was fp convincing as to bear down in them the force of the
ftrongeft reafoningsand the cleareft arguments that ftood againft
it, as we fee evidently in the cafe of Abraham ,' he is command-
ed to offer his fon Ifaac ; if this command had not been im-*
preffed on his mind with an evidence, that God was the reveal-

er

424 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

er, beyond what any reafoning upon figns and marks, and I
know not what, could pretend tOj^ the ftrong plain arguments,
that lay againfl: it, ftrengthened by a combination of the flrong-
eft natural affe(f^ions, muft have carried it. 4. If Abraham was
convinced by fuch reafonings, that God revealed this, that
this command was from God, is it not llrange that he, makes no
mention of them, when it was fo obvious, that it was liable to
be queftioned whether God could give fuch a command? But the
truth of it rs, it is obvious to any one that thinks, that nothing
could prevail in this cafe, but the incontrollable and irrefiftible
evidence refulting from the very imprcirion, v^'hereby the com-
mand was revealed. But we wave any further confideraiion o^
this, which now we have no experience of.

(2.) Mr. Locke will admit, that the primitive Chriftians, who
embraced the gofpel, did it upon fufHcient obje6\ive evidence.
He is not a Chrillian who denies it. But he will not admit in-
tuitive evidence in this cafe. And I lliall, I hope, afterwards
make it appear, that it was not on the evidence of fuch Feafon-,
ings, as Mr. Locke talks of, that they embraced it.

(q.) The fcriptures demand our afi'ent, and offer no evidence
but this of God's authority. And arguments are not infifted on
to prove, that it is God that fpeaks ; God calls us not to affent
without objective evidence, and yet waves the ufe of fuch ar-
guments as Mr. Locke would have to be the foundation of our
faiih. There mull be therefore fome objedive light of a dif-
ferent fort fuppofed, that muft be the ground of our aflent. And
that there really is fo, the fcriptures teach, as we fhall fee af-
terwards, when this propofition muft be proven, and explained
more fully,

(4.) Abftra£iing from what has been faid, we have as good
ground as can be defired, and as the nature of the thing admits,
for believing there is really tx light di/iinSI from thofe mentioned
by Mr. Locke. As to the pcrfons who have it, this light evi-
dences ilfelf in the fame way as the other forts of intellectual
light do- They are conlcious of it, and find it has the fame ef-
fecl, determining the mind totifTent, alluring it, and giving it
reft in the full conviction of truth. A^ to others who want it,
they have fuch evidence as a blind man has, that there is fuch
a thing as vifible evidence. They have the concurring fuffiage
of perfons fobcr, judicious and rational, who have given evi-
dence of the greatcft cautioufnefs in guarding againft deluf^on,
enthufiafm, and groundlefs imaginations. Bchdes, the eife6ts

pecu-

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 425

peculiarly flowing from fuch a faith as leans on this foundation,
gives evidence tc it. But I cannot ftay to prove this further at
prefent.

4. ** Though perhaps an account every way fatisfying can-
** not be given of the nature of this light, nor can we fo clear
*' what it is, and wherein it confirts, as to make thofe who are

unacquainted with it, underftand it, or have as c0^ a notion
** of it as they have, whofe experience fatisfies them as to its

reality : Yet fuch an account may be given of it, as may

fecure it againft the imputation of unreafonablenefs, and un-

intelligibility." To this purpofe, I (hall only obferve the
few things enfuing.

(i.) That light or obje6\lve evidence, whereon we are obli-
ged to believe, and all that are rubje6tively enlightened to be-
lieve the fcriptures, and ground their affent, is fuch, that a
more intelligible account by far may be given of it to thofe,
who have no experience of it, than can be given of the objec-
tive evidence of villble objeds to peribns who have no experi-
ence of fight. To clear this,

(2.) It is to be obferved, that in the writings of men, efpeci-
aliyof fome, who have any peculiarity of genius, and excel in
any kind, we find fuch chara6ters, marks and peculiar evidences
of them, not only in the matter, but in the manner of expref-
fion, and way of delivering their thoughts: there is fuch a fpl-
rit, and fomewhat fo peculiar to themfelves to be obferved, that
fuch as have any notion of their writings, cannot thereon avoid
a convi6lion, that this or that book, though it bears not the au-
thor's name, or thofe other marks, whereon we depend as to our
opinion of the authors of books, of whom we have no particu-
lar acquaintance, is yet written by fuch an author, the veftiges
of whofe peculiar fpirit and genius run through, and are dif-
cernible in the flrain of the book. There are few men, who
are acquainted with books, and read them with attention and
judgment, who have not the experience of this. And hence
we arc frequently referred to this, as what may fatisfy us, that
books that bear fuch author's names are genuine and truly
theirs.* And it is found more convincing than the atteflation

G g g of

* « Though you had not named the author, &c. I could have
" known and avouched him. There is a face of a ftyle, by which
♦< vvc fcholars know one another, no lefs than our perfons by a vifible
*' countenance." Bi'^ip ilaH's preface- i9 Dr» Tnvifs's dauhting Con/,
■rcjol'Vid-) PHg, 2.

426 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

of no incredible witneffes in many cafes. Yet it mufi be confeffed,
that perfons of the bell judginent, and moft capable to exprefs
their thoughts, will find it difficult, if not impoffible to exprefs
intelligibly v/herein this obje6^ive evidence confilis : But that
really it is there, that there is fuch a thing, is impoffible for
them to queftion.

(3.) If poor men, who differ infinitely lefs f-om one ano-
ther, than the moll; exalted created being can be fuppofed to do
from God, do impart to the produft of their own thoughts, and
leave on their writings fuch peculiar and difcernible chara6lers
of their own genius and fpirit, as, at firft view, upon the lead
ferious attention, co?ivinces the reader, that they are the au-
thors, and enables him to diflingui(h their writings from others,
is it not reafonabie to fuppofe, that a book written by God, mufl
carry on it a peculiar and diftinguifliing imprefs of its author;
and that by fo much the more certainly difcernible, by any that
has right notions of him, as the difference betwixt him and the
iDoft exalted human genius is infinitely greater, than that be-
twixt the moft contemptible pamphlet writer and the moft ele-
vated fchoiar ? Nay, is it not impoftible rationally to imagine
the contrary ? Can we think. !hat he, who in all his works,
even in the meaneft infecl, has left fuch objective evidence,
and fuch impreffions of himielf, whereby he is certainly known
to be the author, has not left imprefiions, more remarkable
and diftinguiihing, on his word, which ke has magnified above
^11 his namif that in, all the means whereby he defigns to
make himfelf known, and which he defigned to be the prin-
cipal means ot imparting the knowledge of himfelf to men,
and that for the higheft purpofes, — ihc'ir Jaivatton and his ozon
glory,

(4.) This Imprefs, thofe charaftcrs, prints and veftigcs of
the infin-"te pertcrtions of the Deity, that unavoidably muft be
allowed to be ftampcd on, and fhJne, not merely, or only, or
principally, in the matter, but in that as fpoken or written, and
in the writings or words, in their ftile, the fpirit running
througli them, the fcopc, tendency, &c. This Oz-i'nfzTiztci, or
God-becoming imprels of majefty, fovereignty, omnifcience,
inilcpendence, holi nelVj, juftice, goodnefs, wlfdom and power,
is not only a fuiHoient and real, but in very deed, the greateft
objective light and evidence imaginable. And where one has
an underjianding given to know him that is true, and is made
thereby to enlertdin any fuitable notions of the Deity, upon in-
tuition

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 427

tuition of this obje6\ive evidence, without waiting to reafon on
the matter, his aflent will be carried, and unavoidably deter-
mined to reft on it as the higheft ground of aflurance. A.nd
this aflent, founded on this imprefs of the Deity in his own
■word, is indeed an alTent of the higheft degree. And thus
far faith refembles our intuitive knowledge, with this difference,
not as to the manner of the mind's a6ling, but as to the ability
whence it a(5ls ; that in our intuitive knowledge, as Mr. Locke,
and thofe of his opinion, reftrlc^s it, the evidence or objedlive
light is fuch as not only is immediately without reafoning dif-
cerned, but fuch as lies open to, and is difcernible by cur un-
derftandins^s, without any fubjed^ive light, any work of the
Spirit of God, either repairing our difabled feculties, or ele-
vating and guiding them to the due obfervation, or fixing their
attention, or freeing their minds of the power and prefent in-
fluence of averfion of will, diforder of affeiStions, and pejudices
that obftru6l the difcerning power. Whereas this is really ne-
ceflary in this cafe ; and though the obje£live evidence is great,
and ftill the fame, yet according to the greater or lelTs^r degree
of this affiftance, our aflent muft be ftronger or weaker, more
fixed or wavering.

(5.) When this obje6^ive evidence is actually obfervant to,
and under the view of the mind thus enabled, difpofed and af-
iifted, there doth arife from it, and there is made by it, an im-
preflion on the whole foul correfponding thereto. The beaming
of God's fovereign authority awes confcience. The piercing evi-
dence of his omnifcience increafes that regard, the view of his
goodnefs, mercy, love and grace, operates on the will, and
leaves a relifli on the affe6\ions, and this truly refembles f':nfi-
ble evidence, tiiough it is of fpiritual things, and of a fpiritual
nature ; nor is it, as it is evidence, inferior to, but upon many
accounts preferable to that which refults from the impreuion
made by fenfible objesSts. And this, as was obferved of the
former, is alfo greater or lefs, according, and in proportion
unto the view we have of that objective light above mentioned.
This ielf-evidencing power is a refultancy from, and in degree
keeps pace with that i"e!f-evidencing light.

(6.) The effetSts wrought on the foul are fuch, many of ihem,
as not only are mod difcernible in the time, but likewife do re-
main on the foul, fome of them ever after, many of them for a
long tra6l of time, and in their nature are fuch as evidently
tend to the perfecting of our facuUies, are fuitable to thetn, and

for

428 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

for their Improvement, even according to what unprejudiced and
fober reafon determines, as to that wherein the defe6\s of our
faculties, and their perfection conhfts* And the reality of.thoie
ciTc6ts, whereof the mind is inwardly confcious, appears to the
conviction of beholders, in their influence upon the perfon's
deportment before the world. And,

(7.) Hence it is, that though our conviClion neither needs,
nor is founded on reafonings ; yet from thofc effetis ground is
given, and matter offered for a rational and argumentative con-
firmation of cur affent, and the grounds thereof, and the vali-
dity of it for our own confirmation, when that evidence which
firft gave ground for our faith, and wherein it refts, is not ac-
tually under view, as alfo for the convi6\ion of others.

(8.) This evidence is fuch as indeed challenges, and is a
fufficient bottom for an afient of the higheft degree. And in-
deed the faints of God, and that even of the meaneR condition,
and who have been under the moft manifeft difadvantages, both
as to capacity and education, with the like accafions of im-
provement, upon this bottom have reached faith, comprifing
alTurance without doubt, even that full a/furance of faith, yea
the riches of the full ajfurance of iindeiflandiiig, as has been
evident by the efFefts in death and life, of which we have no-
table inftances not a few in Heb. xi. throughout, both in ad-
verfity and profperity, life and death.

5' ** I obferve, That this light or objective evidence where-
** on faith is bottomed, has no affinity with, but is at the fur-
*' theft remove from cnthufiaftick impulfe, or imaginations."

(i.) This is not a perfuafion without reafon. Here is the
firongeft reafon, and the affent hereon given leans upon the moil
pregnant evidence.

(2.) It carries no contradiction to our f«:culties, but influ-
ences them, each in a way fuitable to its nature and condition.

(3.) Yea more, none of our faculties in their due ufe do
contiadiCt, or at leafl: difprovc it. Whereas enthufiaftick im-
preiTions are irrational.

(4.) This is not a perfuafion, nor a ground for it without, or
contrary to the word, but it is the evidence of the word itfelf,
that by it we are direCled to attend to, and improve.

(5.) Yea it is what our other faculties in their due ufe will
give a confequential confirmation to, as we have heard. Where-
fore,

(6.) INIr, Locke fiiall be allowed to run down enthufiafm as

much

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 429

much as be pleafeth, and ** perfuafions whereof no reafon can
*' be given, but that we are ftrongly perfuaded," or not to
give credit to thofe that can fay no more for themfclves, " but
** we fee or feel," &c. But thefe things as delivered by Locke,
need lome cautions. As, i. A perfuafion whereof no reafon
can be given, is certainly not faith, but fancy : but a perfua-
fion, whereof he that hath it, through weaknefs, cannot give
an account, may be [olid. 2. A perfuafion may be folid, of
which he that hath it, cannot give another evidence of the fame
kind as he hath himfelf. It is enough that proof of another
fort, and fufficient in its kind, is offered. 3. If one fays, he fees
and he feels, this may be fatisfying to him, though he cannot
give any diftindt account of the evidence he hath. And that
he cannot thus account for the nature of things that are within
him, concludes not againft the reality and truth of what he has
the experience: but his experience is not ground of convi6lion to
others, unlefs other proofs are offered. A man of a fhallow
capacity, deftitute of education, might be convidted of enthu-
fiam by a fubtile blind man, to whom he cannot for his feeing
give an evidence of the fame kind, nor open the nature of vifible
evidence, nor give any other proof that he is not miftaken, but
that he fees ; and yet notwithftanding of this he is not miftak-
en, aflents not without reafon, and has no ground to call in
queftion what he fees, but may and will fecurely laugh at all
the l^lind man's quirks, and tell him, he is blind* The cafe
is parallel. We muft not by this atheiftical fcare-crow be fright-
ened out of our faith and experience.

6. " That many read the fcriptures, without difcerning any; |
" thing of this light, is no argument againft it." For,

(i.) Many want that fupernatural ability, that underftand-
ing whereby God is known, whereby Chrift's ^^e/> know his
voice Jro7n that of ajlranger, and fo not being oj God, they can--
not hear his words,

(2.) Many want, and are utterly deftitute of any tolerable
notions of God : It is impoffible fuch fhould difcern what is fuit-^
able to him.

(3.) Many have perverfe notions of God rivetted on their
minds, and that both among the learned and unlearned j and
finding the fcripture not fuited to, but contrary to thofe falfe
pre-conceived impreflions, they look on it as fooliihnefs.

(4.) Many want that humble frame of fpirit, which has the

promife

430 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

promife of divine teaching ; the. meek he guides in the zoay.
It is they who are fools in their own eyes, who get wifdom.

(5,) Many are proud and conceited deeply, and no wonder
then that they know nothing.

(6.) Many have the vanity of their minds uncured, and fo
hunt after vain things, and fix not in obfervation of what is fo-
lid, and thereby their foohjh hearts art hardened, and their
minds darkened and diverted.

(7.) Not a few are under the power of prevailing lufts, dif-
ordered afFe6\ions, and out of favour to them they are fo far
from defiring an increafe of knowledge, that on the contrary,
they like not to retain God in their kMowledge. What they al-
ready know, is uneafy to them, becaufe contrary to their lufts,
and therefore they would be rid of it.

(8.) Many there are that defpife the Spirit of God, reje£l his
operations, feek not after him, contemn him : And no wonder
fuch as refufe the guide, lofe their way.

(9.) Many, for thofe and other fins, are judicially left of God
to ihc god of this world, who blinds the minds of them that hi'
lieve not.

(10.) Many never attempt to do his will, and fo no wonder
they come not to a difcerning whether the word fpoken and
written, is of God. And if all thefe things are confidered, wc
fhall be fo far from quedioning the truth, becaufe many fee not
X'viQ evidence, that this very blindnefs will be an argument to
prove the truth of it, and a ftrong evidence of the need of it,
and of fupernatural power (o believe it.

Finally, Perfons fober and attentive want not fome darker
views of this evidence, which may and fhould draw on to wait
for more. And I take the honourable confeffions, in favour of
the fcriptures, made by adverfaries, to have proceeded from
fome fainter views of this fort.

Thus I have confidered the force of what I find pleaded by
Mr. Locke ; flated the queftion ; cleared in fome meafure 'our
opinion as it flands opppfed to that of the Rationalifls ; ailigned
an intelligible notion of the reafon of faith ; and fliewed it to
be fuch as the meaneft are capable of, and fuch as is propofed
to ail who are obliged to believe the fcriptures : whereas thefe
hiftorical proofs are above the reach of thoufands, and were ne-
ver heard of by innumerable muliitiides, who, on pain of dam-
nation, arc obliged to receive the fcriptures as the word of God.

IV. Having

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 431

IV. Having in our third obfervation overthrown the ground
of Mr. Locke's opinion, we are now to clear, that what Mr,
Locke builds on, nnuft of courfe fall ; particularly what he tells
us, Lib. 4. Cap. 18. Par. 6. pag. 584. " That they, who make
'* revelation alone the fole object of faith, cannot fay, that it
** is a matter of faith, and not of reafon, to beieive, that fuch
** or fuch a propofiiion, to be found in fuch or fuch a book,
** is of divine infpiration ; unlefs it be revealed. That that
** propofition, or all in that book was communicated by di-
** vine infpiration." And he goes on telling us, That with-
" out fuch a particular revelation, affuring us of this, that this
" propofition is by divine infpiration, it can never be matter
** of faith, but matter of reafon, to affent to it."

What Mr. Locke defignsby this difcourfe, 1 know not; un-
lefs he meant to put us under a neceffity to prove every propofi-
tion of the fcripture to be of divine infpiration, before we believe
what it exhibits. And if this is what he intends, he overthrows
the Chriftian religion entirely, at leaft as to its ufe and advan-
tage to the generality. But waving what further might be ob-
ferved, I (hall only animadvert a little upon that one aflerticn,
** That our belief, that this or that propofition is from God, is
" not an a<5l of faith but of reafon." As to which I fay,

1. If Mr. Locke defigned no more but this. That the men*
tioned alTent to the fcripture propofitions, is an a6^ of, and fub-
je6led in our rational, or intelledive faculty, it might well be
admitted. Or,

2. If Mr. Lock meant, that this affent is agreeable to the na-
ture of our minds, that is, that it is not really contrary to the true
principles of reafon, nor fuch as proceeds without fuch grounds
as the nature of our underftandings require for founding an af-
fent, we ftiould admit, that in this fenfe it is an a6t of reafon,
that is, a rational a6l, as not only being elicit by oar under-
ikndings, but depending on fuch a reafon or ground, as the
nature of the intellediual power requires, and which muft al-
ways be confident with our certain knowledge. But,

3. Neither of thefe being intended, we cannot go along with
Mr. Locke in what he means by this expreffion, That cur belief
of fcripture propofitions, is an act of reafon, that is, an afient
not built upon divine tefiimony, but on fuch other argv:iing§
and reafonings, as we can find out for proving that God revealed
it* Becaufe we fay, and fiiall afterwards prove, that the fcrip-
tures do evidence themfelves to be from Gcd, in that way a-

bove-

432 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

above-expreiTcd, and afterwards to be explained and confirmed,
which we hope fhall be done in fuch Ibrt, as may ell^edually
repel the force of what Mr. Locke has pleaded in oppofilion to
the fcriptures, and fhew, that there is no reafon for ranking all
the truths therein delivered amongft thofe conjectural things
that lean only on probabilities and reafonings from them, which
Mr. Locke evidently does, while he fmks traditional revelation
as to the point of certainty below our intuitive, rational and fen-
fible knowledge ; and baniihes all faith, properly fo called, out
of the world, leaving no room for it, and fubl^ituting in its
place an act of reafon, proceeding upon probabilities, that is,
on hiftorical proofs, which he reckons only among probabilities;
nor do I blame him for this laft, though perhaps lome things he
has offered on this head, might be excepted againil ; but this is
not my bufinefs.

The quellion in (hort amounts to this, " Whereas the fcrip-
** tures, wherever they come, oblige all to v.rhom they are of-
** fered, to receive them not as the word of man, but, as in-
** deed they are, the zoord of God; upon what ground or for*
" mal reafon is it, that we afTent thus unto them, and receive
** them as the word of God, to his glory and our falvatien, in
** compliance with our duty ?"

In anfvvcr to this important query, I fnall offer what, upon a
review of former experieiice, confideration of the fcriptures, and
what otliers, cfpecially that judicious and profound divine Dr.
Owen, in his two treatifes on this fubje6i, have written on this
head, appears fatisfying to me: And this 1 (ball do in the few
following Propoftions, which I fliall, with as much brevity anj
pcrfpicuity as I can, lay down, and ihorlly confirm with fome
few arguments.

Prop. I. ** That faith whereby we afTent unto, and receive
«* the word of God, to his glory and our falvation, is faith di-
** vine and fupernatural."

1. There are at this day, who teach, That whatever faith
is at preCent to be found amongft men, is built upon, and re-
folved into the teflimony of men*. And therefore it will be
neceflary to iniili a little in confirniing and explaining of this
important truth.

2. To clear this we obferve, that the underflanding, or that
faculty, power or ability of the foul of man, whereby we per-
ceive,

* Le' Clerk in his Logicks.

THE REz^SON OF TRUE FAITH. 433

ceive, and alTent unto truths upon their proper evidence, rray
be dillinguifned or branched into diverlc iubordinate powers, in
refpecl of the ditFerent truths to which it affents. i. We have
an ability of affenting unto the felf-evident maxims of reafon,
fuch as that, The fame things at the fame time, cannot he and not
he, upon their own feif-cvidence, without any other argument,
than a bare propofal of them in terms we underiland. 2. We
have an ability to aiTent unto other truths, upon conviction of
their truth by argunients, drawn from the fore-mentioned lelf-
evident truths, or any other acknowledged or owned by us.
3. We have an ability to aiTent unto truths, upon the evidence
of the tellimony of credible witnefles, or perlons worthy to be
believed, and of deferving credit. This ability, and the alTent
given by it to fuch truths, upon fuch teftimony, are both called
by the fame common name, faith*

3. Faith then is that power or ability of the mind of man,
•whereby be is capable of receiving, and a6\uallv aflents unto
truths upon the evidence of the teftimony of perfons worthy of
credit, who know what they teftify, and will not deceive us.
Now whereas the perfon giving this teftimony, is either God,
men, or angels, good or bad, faith may be confidered as either
divine, human or angelical. This laii, as of no confideration to
our purpofe, we (liall lay afide. That faith, or ability, whereby
we alTent to the teftimony of men worthy of credit, is called hu-
7nan faith' And thai whereby we affent to truths upon the evi-
dence of the teftimony of God, who cannot lie, is called divine

faith.

4. Divine faith is that power, or ability whereby we alTent
unto, and receive truths propofed to us upon evidence of the
word or teftimony of God, to our own falvation, in conipiiance
with our duty, to the glory of God.

5. In this account of divine faith, we add, in compliance with
our duty, to the glory of God, and ow^ own falvation, becaufe
devils and men may yield fome affent unto truths, upon the evi-
dence of God's teftimony, which neither anfwers their duty,
nor turns to the glory of God in their falvation, of which we
do not now defign to fpeak, and therefore by this claufe have
cut it off, and laid it afide, as not belonging to that faith where-
of we now fpeak, and whereby we conceive all, to whon) the
fcriptures come, are obliged to receive them.

6. This faith now defcribed may be called divine, and fuper-
natural, and really is fo on two accounts, i. Becaufe this abiii-

H h h ty

I

434 AN* ESSAY CONCERNING

tv is wrouj^ht in them, in whom it is found, by the divine and
fupernatural power of God- 2. Becaufe it builds not its per-
fuafion of, yields not its aflenl unto the truths it receives upon
any human authority or teiiimony ; but upon the teftimony of
God, who can neither be ignorant of any truth, deceived, or
deceive us.

y. It now remains, that we confirm this propofition that we
have thus ftiorllv explained. And this we ihall do by its kvc
ral parts. F^y'?, then we aflert, " That this faith is wrought in
'* thefe, who have it, by the power of God." Now for clear-
ing this, we fhall only hint at the heads of a few arguments,
leaving the further proof to polemic treatifes. I. This ability
to believe and receive the things of God to our falvation and
his glory, is in fcripture exprefsiy denied to natural or unre-
newed men. 2 Thef. iii. 2. All men have 7iot jaiih. i Cor.
jj, 14. — Jjit natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God: For they are foolifhnefs unto him : Neither can he know^
them, becaufe they are fpiritually difcerned. Joh. viii. 47. — Ye
therefore hear not God's words, becaufe ye are not oj God.
2. This is exprefsiy denied to be of ourfelves, and afferted a
fupernatural gij^t of God- Ephef. ii. '^.'—By grace K arc
faved through faith, and that not of y ourfelves, it is the gift of
God. 3. The produ6iion of it is afcribed unto God. He it is
that fulfils in his people the work of faith zvith power, 2 Thef.'
i. 1 1. He it is that gives them, that is, that enables them, on
the behalf of Chrifl, to believe and faff er for his name, Phil.
J. 29. It is one oixht fruits produced by Xhcfpirit, Gal. v. 22.
ana of it Chrift is the. author, Heb. xii. 2.

Secondly, We are next ihortly to prove, '' that this faith
*• builds its perfuafion on the teftimony of God evidencing it-
*' felf fuch unto the mind," and not on human teftimony^
2. It is in Icripture exprefsiy faid not to 7?^???^ in the zvfdo?n of
men, i Cor. ii*. 5, that is, it leans not on the word, authority,
eloquence or reafonings of men. 2. It is exprefsiy in that
lame verfe, laid to fland in the power of God, that is, as the
foregoing;? words compared with ver. 13. explain it, in the
zi'ords which the HclyGhofl teacheth, and which he demonftrates
cr evidences by his power, accompanying them, to be the word
of God. 3. It is defcrihed in fuch a way as fully clears this ;
it is held forth as a receiving of the word, not as the word of
nun, but &sit is indeed the word of God, which effedually zuork-

eth

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 435

dh in you that believe f i- Thef. il. 13. Many other proofs miglit
be added, but this is fi;fflclent to anfwer our purpofc.

Thirdly, VVe (hall next fhortly prove, *' that Vv^e are obliged
** in duty thus to believe the fcriptures, or to receive them as
** the word of God, and not of men." i. The fcriptures are
indeed, and hold forth themfelves every where as the word of
God. They are the oracles of God, which holy men of God
fpakz by the motion of the Spirit of God, and zurote by divine in-
fpiration, and the Holy Ghojl /peaks to us by than* Now
when God utters oracles, fpeaks, writes and utters his mind to
us, we are in duty obliged and bound to aiTent to what he fays,
and yield what obedience he requires. This the very light of
nature teacheth. 2. The fcriptures were written for this very
end, that we might believe, and that believing zve might have
life, John xx. 30, 31. The fcriptures of the prophets (which
contain the revelation of the myfiery of God's will, otherwife
not known) according to the commandment of the evtrlafling God^
are made known unto all nations for the obedience of faith,
Rom. xvi. 25, 26. Again the fcriptures are termed a more fare,
word of prophecy than the voice from heaven, and men are faid to
do well, to take heedxo them, 2 Pet. i. toward the clofe. That is,
it is their duty to take heed to them, or believe them. 3. The
mofl dreadful judgments are threatened againfl; thofe who re-
ceive not the word of God from the prophets or apoRlesi whe-
ther by word or writ, is all one. Whojoever fkall not receive.
you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that houfe or
city, fliake off the dnfi of your feet* Veiily 1 fay unto you, it
fliall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Goviorrah, in
the day of -judgment, than for that city, Matth. x. 14, 15. Ac-
cordingly we find the ^poftles preach the word at Antioch in
Pifidia, A6is xiii. ; demand acceptance of it both of Jews and
Gentiles ; and upon their refufal they teliify againft them in the
way of the Lord's appointment, ver. 51. Though fo far as we
can learn, they there wrought no miracle to contirm their mif-
fion. 4. We have above heard the apolVte commending the
Thefialonians for receiving the word as the word of God, and
not of man, l Theff. ii. 13. which fufhciently ihews that it
was their duty.

Whereas fome may here fay, *' How can it be our duty io
believe the word of God, unce it has been above proved, that

we

* Heb. V. 12. — 2 Per. i. 20^ 21. — 2 Tim. iii. 16. — Mark xii, ^6.
Afis i. 16, — Ads xxviii. 25.— rieb. iii. 7,

43^ AN ESSAY CONCERNING

wc are not able of curfelves thus to do It." I anf'vver briefly,
I. The very light of nature requires pcrfe£i obedience of us;
and yet we are not able to yield to it. 2. The Icriptures plain-
ly require, that zve Jerve God acceptahlyt with reverence and
godly j car y Heb. xii. 28. and yet we muft have grace whereby
to do it. 3. We have deflroyed ourjllvesj Flof. xiii. 9. and
that through this, our faith or natural ability of believing truths
upon teflimony, is fo impaired and weakened, and by preju-
dices fo obitruuled otherwife, that we are not able to dif-
cern the evidence of God's authority, in his word, nor afl'ent
thereon to his teftimony in a due manner, yet this cannot
reafonably prejudge God's right to demand credit to his word,
whereon he has impreiled fuch prints of his authority, as are
fufficiently obvious to any one's faith, that is not thus faultily
depraved. 4. We have therefore no reafon to queflion God,
who gave us eyes, which we have put out, but to blame our-
felves, and aim to do his will, that is, wait on him in all the
ways of his own appointment ; and we have no reafon to def-
pair, but that in this way we may have gracioufly given us of
God's fovereign grace, an underflanding to know whether
thefe truths are of God, or they who fpoke them did it of them-
felves, (i John v. 20- John vii. 17.) Though we cannot claim
this as what is our due.

Thus we have in fome meafure cleared what that faith is,
whereby the fcriptures muft be believed to the glory of God
and our own falvation, and confirmed fliortly our account of it
from the fcriptures of truth. We now proceed to

Prop. IL '* The reafon for which we are obliged in duty
** to believe or receive the fcriptures as the word of God, is
** not, That God has by his Spirit wrought faith in us, or given
** us this ability thus to receive them."

This propofition we have ofFcred, becaufe fome do blame
Proteftants for faying fo ; whereas none of them really do it.
Nor can any man reafonably fay it. For clearing this obfcrve,

I. It is indeed true, that ve carrot believe them, unlefs
God y^ive us this gracious ability or faith to believe them,
and by his Holy Spirit remove our natural darkncfs, and clear
our minds of thofe prejudices agaiqft his word, wherewith na-
turally they are filled.

2. Yet this is not the reafon v/herefore we do afTent unto, or
receive the fcriptures ; for it were impertinent, if any (liould

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 437

aflc, Upon v»'hat account do ye believe the fcrlptures to be the
word of God ? to anfwer, 1 believe it becauTe God has wrought
the faith of it in me. This is not to tell wherefore we do be-
lieve, but to tell how we came to be furnilhed with power or
ability to believe.

Prop. HI. " We are not to believe the fcriptures upon the
** authority of any man or church : or, The reafon wherefore
** we are in duty bound thus to afTent to, or receive the fcrip-
** tures as the word of God, is not, that any man, or church,
** fays fo."

This is fully demonftrated by our writers againft the Papids.
For confirmation of it, it is fufficient for our purpofe at pre-
fent to obferve,

1. That to believe, that the fcriptures are the word of God,
becaufe fuch a man, or church fays fo, anfwers not our duty.
Our duty is to believe God fpeaking to us, upon the account of
his own veracity ; and not becaufe men fay, that this is his
word. This is not to believe God and his prophets for the fake
of their own teflimony, but for the authority of men, (2 Chron.
XX. 20.)

2. The faith that leans upon this teftimony, is built not on
the truth of God^ but on the ttjlimony of meriy who may be
deceived and deceive : All men are liars*

3. We have no where in the word this propofed as the
ground whereon, in duty, we are obliged to believe the fcrip-
tures.

4. The church, and what (he fays, is to be tried by the word,
and her teftimony is fo far only to be received as the word con-
fents : and therefore we cannot make this the ground of our
faith, without a fcandalous circle, which the church of Rome
can never clear herfelf of.

5. But I need infill no further on this head. That church
which only claims this regard to her teftimony, is long fince
become fo well known, and fo fully convi6led of manifold
falfhoods, that her tefiimony rather prejudges than helps to con-
firm whatever it is ens:as;ed for.

■to-to-

Prop. IV. ** The rational arguments whereby the truth of
** the Chriftian religien is evinced and demonftraied againft
** atheifts, though they are many ways ufeful, yet are not the
** ground or reafon whereon, in a way of duty, all who have

^* the

43S AN ESSAY CONCERNING

" the Scriptures propofed to them, are obliged to believe and
" receive them as the word of God."

Thefe moral and rational confideratlons are, and • may be
many ways ufeful to (top the mouths of enemies, to beget la
them, who yef are unacquainted with the true intrinfick worth
of the word, Tome value for it, and engage them to confider it ;
to relieve them that do believe againft objeflions, and ftrength-
en their faith. This is allowed to them ; and is fufficient in
this ioofe and atheiftical age, to engage perfons of all forts,
who value the fcriptures, to lludy them. Bat yet it is not up-
on them that the faith required of us, as to the divine authority
of the fcriptures, is to be founded. For,

1. Thefe are indeed a proper foundation for a rational af-
fent, fuch as is given upon moral proof or demonftration. And
they are able to bege't a flrong moral perfuafion of this truth. But
this ailent which they beget, cannot, in any propriety of fpeech,
be called faith, either divine or human. For faith is an affent
upon teftimony.

2. The faith that is required of us, is required to be found-
ed not on the wifclom of mtrij that is, the reafonings or ar-
guings of men. Now this leans only and entirely on thefe.

o. This faith is, in way of duty, required of many. Many
are in duty obliged to receive the fcriptures as the word of God,
to whom thefe arguments were never offered. The apoflles
never made ufe of them, and yet required thejr hearers to re-
ceive and believe their word.

4. This faith many are obliged to, who are not capable of
uaderftanding or reaching the force of thefe arguments.

Prop. V. *^ The faith of the fcripture's divine authority is
** not founded in this. That they by whom thev were written,
** did, by miracles, prove they were fent of God."

I need not fpend much time in clearing this. It will fuflR-
ciently conRrm it to obferve,

1. That many are, and were in duty obliged to yield thl^
affent to, and believe the fcriptures, who faw not thefe miracles.

2. We are no other way fure of thefe being wrought, than
by the teftimony of the word.

3. This way is not countenanced by the word : for it no
where teaches us to e\'pe6l miracles as the ground of our alTent,
but upon the contrary declares, that the word of Mofes and the

prophets

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 439

prophets is fufficlent to lay a foundation for faith, without any
new miracle, (Luke x. 31,)

Prop. VI. " The reafon whereon, in duty we are bound
** to receive the fcriptures as the word of God, is not any pri-
" vate voice, whifper or fuggeftion from the Spirit of God,
** feparate and diinn6t from the written word, faying in our
** ear, or fuggefting to our mind, that the fcriptures are the
" word of God."

There is no need to infift long in proof of this. For,

1. Many are bound to believe the word of God, to whom ne-
ver any fuch teftimony was given : but no man is bound to re-
ceive the fcriptures, to whom the ground whereon he is bound
to beh'eve them, is not propofed.

2. There is no where in the word, any ground given for any
fuch teftimony. Nor doth the experience of any of the Lord's
people witnefs, that they are acquainted with any fuch fuggef-
tion. And befides, the queftion might again be moved con-
cerning this fuggeftion, Wherefore do ye believe this to be the
teftimony of God ?

Prop. VIL ** That whereon all, to whom the word of God
** comes, are bound to receive it with the faith above defcribed,
" is not any particular word of the fcripture bearing tefiim.ony
** to all the reii. As for inftance, it is not merely or primarily
*' upon this account, that I am bound to receive all the writleu
** word as the word of God, becaufe the fcripture fays, 2 Tim.
*' iii. 16. That all fcripture is given by infpiration of God,"

This is very plain upon many accounts, fome of which I
fhall fhortly offer.

1. We had been obliged to believe the fcriptures with faith
fupernatural, though thefe teftimonies had been left out. Yea
they who had them not, were obliged to believe the word of
God.

2. Thefe have no more evidence of their being from God,
than oth€r places of fcriptures : and therefore we are not to
believe the fcriptures merely on their teftimony ; but have the
fam.e reafon to receive with faith as the word of God, every
part of the fcripture as well as thefe teflimonies.

Prop. VIIL *' The reafon why we are bound, with faitli
** fupernatural and divine, to receive the word of Cod, ii not,

" tiiat

440 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

** that the things therein revealed, or the matters of the fcrlp-

** tures, are fuitable unto the apprehenfions v/hich men natu-

** rally have of God, themfelves and other things, and con -

** s^ruous to the interefts, neceffities, denres and capacities of

*' men."

I (Iiall not fpend time in overthrowing this, which fome feem
io fond of ; only for confirming the proportion obferve,

1. This fuitablenefs of the matter unto the apprehenfions, or
natural notions of men concerning God, themfelves and other
thino^s, &c. as difcerned by men unrenewed, and made out by
their reafonings, is not a ground for faith, or an afient to teflimo-
ny, but for a perfuafion of another fort.

2. There are many things revealed in the fcripture, which
are to any mere natural man no way capable of this character.
No man receives, or can reafonabiy receive on this account, the
dod^rine of the Trinity, and the like. It Is true, thefe are not
contrarv to our reafon : but it is likewife true, they have no fuch
evident congruity to the notions our reafon luggefts of God, as
ihould engage us to receive the difcovery as from God; yea on
the contrary, there is a feeming inconfiflency that has Oartled
many.

Prop. IX. " When therefore it is inquired. Wherefore
** do ye believe, and by faith reft in the fcriptures as the word
" of God, and not of man? We do not anfwer, It is becaufe
*' God has given us an ability fo to do ; becaufe the church
*' fays, It is the word of God ; becaufe there are many llrong
" moral arguments proving it fo ; becaufe they who wrote it,
•* wroui>^ht miracles ; becaufe God has by fome voice whifpered
*' in our ear, or fecretly fuggefted it to us, that this is the word
*' of God ; or becaufe there are particular fcriptures which bear
** witnefs to all the reft that they are of God ; nor finally, be-
** caufe the matter therein revealed, feem worthy of God to our
'•' reafon."

This is the fum of what has been hitherto cleared : and the
rcafons offered againft all thefe, whether we take them fepa-
lately or conjunctly- They prove, that not one of them, nor
all taken together, are the form.al reafon whereon we are obli-
ged to believe the word of God, or receive it with faiUi fuper-
iiatural and divine.

PROPr

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 441

Prop. X. ** The formal reafon or ground whereon I alTent
** to, or receive the whole fcrlptures, and every p:^rtlcular
** truth in them, and am obliged in duty To to do, is, the au-
*' thority and truth of God fpeaking in them, and fpeaking eve-
** ry truth they contain, evidencing itfelf to my faith, when
** duly exercifed about them, and attending to them, by their
** own divine and diftingullhing light and power. Or v/hsn it
** is inquired, Wherefore do ye believe, receive, afl'ent to,
** and reft in the fcrlptures as indeed the word of God, and
*' not of man? I anfwer, I do believe them, becaufe they car-
** ry in them, to my faith, an evidence of God, or do evidence
** themfelves by their own light and power to my faith, duly
** exercifed about them, that ihey are the word of God, and not
*' of man."

Now for explaining this, which is the aflertion that contains
the truth principally intended, I Ihali offer the few following
■remarks :

1. However great the evidence of God in the word is, yet it
cannot, nor is it requifite that it fhould, determine any to re-
ceive and aflent to it, whofe faith and ability of believing is not
duly difpofed. Though the fun fhine never fo clearly, yet he
that has no eyes, or whofe eyes are vitiate, and under any total
darkening indifpofition, fees it not. No wonder then, that
they, who have not naturally, and to whom God has not yet, by
fupernatural grace, given eyes to fee, ears to hear, or hearts to
perceive, difcern not the evidence of God's authority and truth
in the word.

2. Although there really may be in any an ability, or faith
capable of difcerning this evidence ; yet if that faith is not ex-
ercifed, and duly applied to the confideration of the word,
whereon this evidence is impreffed, he cannot affent unto, or
believe it in a due manner, to the glory of God, hisowu faiva-
tion, and according to his duty. There is evidence fufficient
in many moral, metaphyseal and mathematical truths ; and
yet abundance of perfons,'who are fufficiently capable of it,
60 not affent unto thefe truths, nor difcern this evidence : not
becaufe it is wanting, but becaufe thsy do not apply their minds
to the obfervation of it in a due way. God has not imparted
fuch an evidence to his word, as the light of the fun has, which
forces an acknowledgement of itfelf upon any, whofe eyes are
not wilfully ihut : but dciigning to put us to duty, he has im-
parted fuch evidence, as they, who have eyes to fee, if accord-

1 i i ins

442 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

ing to duty they apply their minds, niay difcern,' and be fatls-
fied by.

3. This li^ht and pr>wer evidencing the divine authority of
the fcripiures, is really impreOed upon every truth, or every
u'ord which God fpeaki to us, efpecially as it ftands in its own
place, related to, and conne6led with the other parts of the
I'cripture, whereto it belongs. But of this more hereafter.

4. When ,to the queftion, Wherefore, or on what grounds
do i affent to the fcriptures as indeed the word of God and not
of man? it is anfwered, I do it, bccaufe it evidences itfeif
to be God's word by its own light or power, there is no place for
that captious queftion, How know ye this light and power to be
divine, or from God ? For, it is of the nature of ail light, ex-
ternal and fenhbie, or internal and mental, (concerning which
two it is hard to determine which ot them is properly, and
which only metaphoricallv, light) that it not only clears to the
mind other things difcernible by it, but fatisfies the mind about
itfeif, proportionably to the degree of its clearnefs. The light
of the fun difcovers fenfible obje^ls, and fatlfiies us fo fully
about itfeif, that we need have recourfe to no new arguments to
convince us that we have this light, and that it is real. In like
manner the evidence of any mathematical truth, not only quiets
iifi about the truth, but makes the mind reft allured about itfeif.
And fo the divine light and power of the word, not only fatis-
fies our minds, as to thofe truths they are defigned of God to
difcover, but, in proportion to the degree of light in them, or
conveyed by thern, fatisfy the mind about this light or power,
that it is truth and is ?20 lie. Nor is there need for any other
argument to convince a mind affe6!ed with this, of it. It is
true, if a blind man fl^.ould fay fo to me. How know ye that
the fun {hines, and ye fee it ? I would anfwer, 1 know it by the
evidence of its own light aiFe<Siing mine eyes : And if he fhould
further fay, But how prove ye to me, that ye aie not deluded,
that really it is (o? Then I would be obliged to produce other
arguments v^hereof he is capable : but then it mufi be allowed
that the evidence of thefe arguments is not fo great as the evi-
dence I jTiyfelf have of it by its ovv'n light ; though they may
be more convincing to him. And further, this is not to con-
vince myfelf, but to {^uisfy him, and free my mind from the
difturbance of his objections. In like manner, if one, that
denies the fcriptures, thall fav, Wherefore do ye believe or rcfl
ia the fcriptures as the word of God 't I anfwe.-, I do it, becaufe

ihev

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 443

they evidence thcmfelvcs to my mind, by their own light, or
pov/er, to be of God. If he (liall fay, I cannot difcern this.
I anhver, It is becauie your mind is darkened, ye want eyes, or
have them Chut, If he iliail further urge, That my light is not
real, I will prove it by arguments, which may ftop his mouth,
and be more convincing to him than mvafiertion, which is all
that hitherto he has; but yet thefe arguments are not that where-
on my mind refls faiisfied as to the truth ; though they may be
of great ufe, not only to convince him, but to relieve my mind
againll luch fubtiie fophifms, as he might make ufe of, which
though they could not perfuade me out of the fight of my eyes,
or the evidence ihining into my mind, yet troubled me hov/ to
anfwer them, and at times, when, through my inadvertency, or
indifpodtion of my eyes, or through clouds overfpreading and
interporing betwixt this light and me, thefe objections might
fhake me a little.

5. Contidering we are but renewed in part, and our faith
is impcrfiTCt. and liable to many defects, the miniftry of the
church is of manifold neceffity and ufe, to awaken us to attend
to this light, to cure the indifpofitions of our minds, to hold up
this light to us, to point out and explain the truths it difcovers,
whereby our minds are made more fenfible of the evidence of
this light. And upon many other accounts of a like nature,
are the ordinances neceffary, and through the efl^icacy of the
divine ordination and appointment, ufcful for eftablillriing our
minds, naturally lluggifh, dark, weak and unftable, and which
are expofed to manifold temptations, in the faith of the fcrip-
tures.

6. In order to our holding fail our faith, and being ftable in
it, betides this outward miniliry, and the inward work of the
Holy Ghoft, giving us an underHanding to difcern this evi-
dence, and befides the forementioned ufe of the moral argu-
ments above-mentioned ; befides all thefe, to our believing and
perfevering in a due manner, in the faith of the fcriptures, we
ftand in need of the daily influences of the Spirit of God, ta
flrengthen our faith or ability of difcerning fpiritual things, to
clear our minds of prejudices, and incidental indilpofitions, to
i'eal the truths on ouf tpinds, and give us refreihing taltes of
them, and con^rm us many ways againft opnofitiou.

7. This light, whereby the written word evidences itfelf un^
to the minds of thofe who have fpiritual ears to hear, and ap-
ply them, is nothing cife fave the imprefs cf the majedy, truth,

omni-

444 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

omnlicience, wifdom, holinefs, juftice, grace, mercy, and au-
thority of God, ftamped upon the fcripturesby the Holy Ghoft,
and beaming or fhining info the minds of fuch perfons upon
their hearing or peruial, and affecting them with a (enk of the(e
perfettions, both in what is fpoken, and in the majeftic and
God becoming way of fpeaking : they fpeak as never ^nan/pake ;
the m itter fpoken, and the manner of fpeaking, has a great-
jnefs difcernible by a fpiritual underftanding, that fully falisfies
it, that God is the fpeaker. And ail the impreffions of God's
wifdom, faithfulnefs, omnifcience and majefty, that are ftamped
upon the matter contained in the fcripturcs, being conveyed only
by the word, do join the impreffions that are upon the word, and
ftrengthen the evidence they give of their divine original, fince
thefe impreffions do not otherwife appear to our minds, or af-
fect them, than by the word. The v/ord, by a God-becoming
manifi^flation of the truth, that fcorns all thefe little and mean
arts of infmuation, by fair and enticing words, and artincially
drefled up argumentations, with other the like confefTions of
human weaknefs, that are In all human writings, commends it-
felf to the confcience, dives into the fouls of men, into all the
fecret leceflTes of their hearts, guides, teaches, dire^s, deter-
mines and judges in them, and upon them, in the name, ma-
jefjy and authority of God. And when it enters thus into the
foul, it fills it v/ith the light of the glory of the beamings of
thofe perfeclions upon it, v/hereby it is made to cry out, Th^
voice of God and not of man,

8. This power, whereby the word evidences itfelf to be the
word of God and not of man, is nothing elfe fave that authori-
ty and awful efficacy, which he puts forth in and by It over the
minds and confciences of men, working divinely, and leaving
cfFe6ls of his glorious and omnipotent power in tliem and on
them. It enters into the confcience, a territory exempt from
the authority of creatures, and fubjccl only to the dominion of
God, it challenges, convinces, threatens, awakens, fets it a
roaring, and the creation cannot quiet it again. It commands
a calm, and the fea, that was troubled before, is fmooth, and
devils and men are not able to dii^urb its repofe. If enters into
the mind, opens its eyes, fills it with a glorious, clear, pure
and purifying light, and fets before it wonders, before unknown,
uiidifcerned in counfel and knowledge, concerning God, our-
ielves, our fin, our duty, oar daiger, and our relief, the
works, (he ways, the counfcls ar.<i purpoies of God. It fpeaks

to

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 445

to the will, converts it, and powerfully difengages it from
what it was nrioft engaged to, what it ennbraced, and was even
glued to before, fo that no art or force of eloquence, argument,
fear or hope, could make it quit its hold ; it makes it haftiiy
quit its embraces, and turn its bent another way, the quite op-
pofite, and with open arms embrace what nothing could make
it look to before, takes away its averfion, makes it willingly
not only go, but run after what it bore the greateft averfion to
before, and obtlinately refufe to clofe with any other thing. It
enters the afteftions, makes them rife from the ground, gives
them fuch a divine touch, that, though they may through their
fickle nature, be carried at a time by force another way, yet
they never reft, but point heaven-ward. It comes to the foul,
funk under the preffure of unrelievable dillrelTes, fticking in
the miry clay, refufing comfort, and in appearance capable of
none, it plucks it out of the clay, raifes it out of the horrible
pit, fets its Jeet upon a rock, fills it with joy, yea makes it ex-
ceeding joyful, while even all outward prefiures and tribulation
continue, yea are increafed. It enters into the foul, lays hold
on the reigning lufls, to which all formerly had fubmitted, and
that with delight; it tries and condemns thofe pov/erful crimi-
nals, makes the foul throw off the yoke, and join in the execu-
tion of its fentcnce againfl, and on them. Now where the cafe
is thus dated, how can the foul, that feels this powerful word,
that comes from the Lord moft High, do ctherwife than jdl
dozvn, and own. That God is in it of a truth,

9. Whereas fome may hereon objedl, ** That many, who
** have for a longtime heard and perufed this word, have not
" perceived this light, nor felt this power, and, on this fuppo-
** lition, feemed exempted from any obligation to believe the
" word." I anfwer,

(i.) Many who have fpent not a few years in prying into the
works of God in the world, have not difcerned to this day the
beaming evidence, and clear declarations of his glory in them ;
yet none will hereon fay, that they are excufable, or that
want of an evidence is chargeable on the works of God. And
why fnould not the cafe be allowed the fame as to the word V
May they not have this evidence, though men do not difcern it ?
And may not men, even on account of this evidence be obliged
to believe them ?

No wonder many difcern not this light, and are not affet^ed
with it, fmce all men have put out their ovi^n eyes, or impaired

by

446 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

by their own fault, that faitli or power of difcerning the voice
of God, fpeaking either by his word or works, which our na-
tures originally had. In many this evil is increafed, and this
power further weakened by their fhutting their eyes, and en-
tertaining of prejudices, manifeftly unjurt, againft God's word
and works. Others turn away their eyes, and will not look to,
cr attend to the word in that way wherein God ordains ihem to
attend to it, that they may difcern iis light, and feel its power.
And God has hereon judicially given many up to the power of
Satan, to be uirther blinded. And no wonder they, whofe eyes
the god of this luorld has bhnd^dt fhould not difcern the glorv
of the golpei of Chrill, who is the image of God, Jhining into
their mindS'

(3.) No wonder thev fhoul I not difcern this ; for God to this
day has not given them eyes to fee^ ears to hear, or hearts to
perceive* It is an att of sovereign grace, which God owes to
none, to open their eyes, which they have wilfully ulinded: and
where he fees not meet to do this, it is not It range, that they
are not afie6^ied with the cleareft evidence,

(4.) Light, however clear, cannot of itfelf fupplv the di-
fe6l of the difcerning power. The fun, thou<:rh it ihines, c.n-
not make the blind to iee. The word has this light in it, though
the blind fee it not ; yea I may adventure to fay, that the word
of God contained in the fcriptures, which he has magnified above
all his name, has in it more, and no lefsdifcernibie evidences
of the divine perfe6lions, and confequently of its divine origi-
nal and authority, than the works of creation, fome of which
are fufficient to carry in fome convit^on of God in it, even on
the n)inds of thofe who are not favingly enlightened, if they at-
tend but to it in the due exercife of their rational abilities, that
isj in fuch a manner as they do, or may attend to it, without
favlog illumination, laying afide wilful prejudice; which though
it will not be fufficient to draw fuch an ailent, as will engage
and enable them to receive the fcriptures, in a due manner, to
the glory of God, and their own falvation, and comply with
them, yet 1 conceive it will be fufficient to juftify againft them
the word's claim to a divine original, and cut them oii" from any
ufe of, or excufe from a plea of the want of fufficient evidence
of the divine original of the word. 1 doubt not, but many of
thefe, who upon conviflion faid, that Chrifl fpake as never ?7iafi
fpake, were (hangers to faving iiluminaJion, and yet faw fome-
what of a fiamp and imprefs of divinity in what he faid, andt'he

manner

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 447

manner of faying it, that drew this confeffion from them, that
rendered them iuexcufable, in not llftening to him, and comply-
ing with his word. Yea I doubt not, that the cafe will be found
the fame as to many, with refpe<St to the written word, and would
be fo to ail, if they feriou{ly> and without wilful prejudices, at-
tended to it.

10. I further obferve. That to engage to this aflent, it is not
rcquifite, that every one feel all thefe, or the like particular
effects at all times, but that the word have this power, and put
it forth, as occafion needs, and circumfiances require it.

Having thus explained, we are now to prove our affertion,
** That the ground whereon we are in duty bound to believe
** and receive the word of God as his word, and not the word
** of man, and whereon all who have received, and believed it
** in a due manner, to the glory of God and their own falvation,
** do receive it thus, is the authority and veracity of God ipeak-
*' ing in and by the word, and evidencing themfelves by that
** light and power, which is conveyed into the foul in and by
** the fcriptures, or the written word itfelf."

Many arguments offer themfelves for proof of this important
affertion, which hiiherto we have explained ; fome of the mofl
confiderable of them I ihall ft ortly propcfe, without infOing
largely on the profecution, deligning only to hint the argu-
ments that fatisfied me, that I was not miftaken as to the grounds
whereon, by the forementioned experience, I was brought lo
receive the fcriptures as the word of God.

Aig. I. God ordinarily in the fcriptures offers his mind, re-
quiring u's to believe, obey and fubmit to it upon this and no
ether ground, viz. the evidence of his own teflimony. The
only reafon commonly infifted on to warrant our faith, oblige
us to believe and receive, is, Thus faith the Lord.

Arg. 2. When faife prophets fet up their pretended revela-
tions in competition with his word, hf- remits them to the evi-
dence his words gave by their own light and power, as that
which was fufficient to diftirguiOi and enable them to reject the
falfe pretenfions, and cleave to his word, Jer. xxiii. 26, — 29.
How long fliall this be in the heart of the p7'ophets that prophefy
lies f Ihat are prophets of the deceit of their own hearts ; which
think to caufe my people to forget my name by their dreams^
which thty tell every man to his neiphbour, as their fathers have
forgotten m.y name for BaaL The prophet that hath a dream,
let him tell a dreamt and he that hath my word, let him Jp-'ak

my

448 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

my word faithfully : JVhat is the chaff to thewhmt, faith the
Lord? Is not my word like a fire, jaith the Lord, and like a
hammer that breaketh the mountains in pieces ? In the laltcr
days of that church, wlven the people were mofi errjinently per-
plexed with fajfe prophets, both as to their nimiber and fubtilty,
yet God lays their eternal and temporal fafety or ruin, on their
dilcerning aright between his wdrd, and that which was only
pretended lb to be. And that they might not complain of this
irupofition, he tenders them fccurity of its eaiincfs of perform-
arjce: fpeaking of his own word comparatively as to every thing
that is not fo, he fays, It is as wheat to chaff', which miy in-
fallibly, by being what it is, be difcerned from it ; and then
abfolutely that it hath fuch properties, as that it will difcover
itfelf, even light, heat, and power. A perfon divinely infpir-
ed was to be attended to for no other reafon, but the evidence
of the word of God, diftinguiPning itfelf from the pretended re-
velations, and fatisfying the mind about it, by its light and
power.

Arg. 3. When further evidence, as that of miracles, is de-
manded, as ncceffary to induce them that are unbelievers to re-
ceive and believe the word, it is refufed, as what was not in the
judgment of God needful, and would not be effectual ; and un-
believers are remitted to the felf-evidence of the word, as that
which would fatisfy them, if any thing would. This our Lord
teaches clearly in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Luke
:<vi. 27. to the end. The rich man being difappointed as to any'
relief to himfelf,in the preceding verfes, isdefirousof preventing
the ruin of his brethren, and for this end is concerned to have
them induced to believe. To which purpofe he propofes, ver. 27,
the fending of Lazarus from the dead to certify them of the reality
of eternal things ; J pray thee therefore Father, fays he to Abra-
ham, that woiadft find him to my Jathers kovfe : for I have five
brethren ; tJiat he may teffy unto them, lejl they afo come to this
place of torment* Abraham faith unto him, They ha,ve Mofes and the
prophets, let them hear them. And he [aid. Nay, father Abraham ;
but if one zvent unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he
f aid unto him, f they hear not Mofes and the prophets, neither toill
they be pafuaded, though one rojefrom the dead* Here the cafe
is plain. The rich man defires a miracle to fatisfy his brethren.
This is refufjjd, and they are remitted to Moles and the pro-
phets, as what was fufhcient. He inliRs, atsd thinks a miracle
would be more fatisfying. This is (11 11 refufed, and it is ph^in-

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 449

]y taught, That where the evidence of the word of God will
not induce or perfuade to believe, the wo(\ uncomrnon miracles
would not do it.

Arg. 4. When the quedion isccnfidered particularly, i Cor.
xiv. What gifts were mcft to the ufe of the church, the mira-
culous gifts of tongues, &c. cr the ordinary gift of prophec}'',
or preaching of the word ? this !aft is preferred, as what was not
only more ufefui for the edification of believers, but for inducing
unbelievers to receive the word, and fubmit to it; and the v/ay
wherein it does this^ is mentioned, which is no other than by
its evidencing itfelf upon its naked propofal, in preaching, by
its own light and power. Let the whole palTage be copfidered
from ver. 22, but efpecially ver. 24, 25. But i/ali propke/y, and
there come in one that believeth not, or unharntd^ he is convinced
of ally he IS judged of all : And thus are the Jccrets of his htart
made manijej}., and fo falling dozen on hisjace^ he will worfkip
Qodf and report, that God is. in you of a truth,

Arg. 5. The conftant pra6tice of the apoftles fully proves
our alTertion. The way they took to perfuade the unbelieving
world to receive the gofpel, was not by propofing the argu-
ments commonly infifted upon now, for proving the truth of
their dotlrine, nor working, nor infixing upon miracles
wrought by them, for confirmation of the truth, but by a hare
propofal oi the truth, and a fincere manifedation of it to con-
fciences, in the name of God, they proceeded, and demanded ac-
ceptance of it, as the word of God and not of man ; and by
this means they converted the world. And when they did re-
i\\i<z it, thus propofed, they fiook off the diift of their feet for a
tejlimony againfl them, and fo laid them open to that awful
tlireatening of our Lord, of punilhments more intolerable then
thefe of Sodom and Gommorrah.

Arg. 5. The experience of thofe who do believe aright,
confirms it fully. However they mav be relieved againft the
objections, and capacitated to deal with adverfaries by other ar-
guments and means, yet that whereon believers of al! fcrts,
learned and unlearned, lean, is the word of God evidencing it-
felf unto their faith, by its own light and power. The unlearn-
ed are for moft part Capable of no other evidence, and yet upon
this alone, in all ages, in life and death, in doing and fuiiering,
they have evidenced another fort of (lability and firmneis in
cleaving to it, and fuffering cheerfully for it, on this account on-
ly, th^n the mod learned, who were beil: furniilied vvilh ar^u-

K k k m.cnts

450 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

ments of another nature, but wanted this: and indeed if this is
not allowed to be the ground of faith, there can be no divine
faith leaning L^pon a divine and inf<;l'ibie bottom ; and the vul-
gar, v.ho are uncapable of any other evidence, niufi rove in
nnceriainty, and pi7i iheir faith upon thz Jlceves of their teach-
ers : but bleffcd be God, here is a ground fufficient to reft on,
that will not fail. He fpeaks, and his fneep, noivvilhftanding
that fiinplicity, which makes them contemptible in the eyes of
the world, know his voice, hear it, andjoliozu himy and will not
hear the voice oj a ft ranger*

Prop. XI. ** Whereas it maybe pretended, tl^at on fup-
** pontion of what has been now ailcrted, the people of God, at
'* times when they difcern not this li^lit, feel not this power,
** have no ground for their faith, with rcfpett unto theie paiTages
** or portions of fcripture, which do not thus evidence ihen;-
** felves to be from God, at the time of tlisir perufai, or of their
** hearing of them, by affecting the believer's mind, with a
*' fenfe of this divine light and poiver. In oppontion to this
** objedion, and for removing the ground of it, 1 ciier the foi-
** lowing truth, which afterwards i Iball clear. That there is no
** part of the fcriptures, in fo far as God ipeaks in them, bat
** doth thus fufHcienlly evidence its authority in its feafon, unto
** perfons capable of difcerning it, and duly applying them-
** felves in the way of the Lord's appointment, in io far as they
** are at prefcnt concerned to receive, believe and obey it, in
*' compliance with tlicir prefcnt duty, and reach the meaning
*' of the propofitlon in and by the ui'e of the means of God's
** appointment."

This objeftion has fometimes had a very formidable afpc-fl to
m.e, and therefore 1 Oiall dillinctiy propole, fofar as the brevity
deii'>-ned will permit, the grounds whereon I was latished about
the truth propofed in oppofition to it, in the following explica-
tory and confirming cbiervations, referring for further ciearmg,
as to the way wherein the Lord quieted me, and relieved me of
objeclions, to the foregoing chapter.

f. We are to obferve, that feith, or that power in man,
xvhereby he alTents to truth upon teltimony, is corrupted, as
well as his other powers, by his fall. And though in believers
it is renewed, they receiving an undcrilanding, whereby they
know him that is true, and hioio his voice from that oj ajiran-
gcr, yet even in them it is imperfe6t, and habitually weak, they

being

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 45 ^

being rcneived but in part, and To knowing but in part, as it is
with refpeft to his other powers, lb it is as to this. And befides
this habitual weaknefs, which engages them to cry to the Lord
daily for carryingon the zoork of faith with pozuer,znd an increale
of faith to believe and live to God in a due manner ; befides, I "
fay, this habitual weaknefs, it is liable to various extraordinary
incidental diforders, arifnig from inward and outward occafions,
while the believer is here in this valley of tears, fubjeCt unto
the miferies occafioned by the remaining power of indwellinjj
corruptions, which are in themfelves reftlefs, and raife many
fogs, damps and mifts to overcloud the foul : and by the vio-
lence of outward temptations, wliich Satan and the world throng
in upon them, through the wife permiilion of God, for the ex»
ercife of their faith in this itate of trial, the darknefs is exceed-
ingly increafed, faith weakened, or at leaft ftraitened as to its
exercife. And by this means this fpiritual difcerning is iome-
times more, and fometimes lefs obftruded and darkened. Now
if at fuch feafons, while the believer finds himfetf thus out of
order, he cannot difcern this evidence of the divine authority
of the word, i?o not where it ftiines cleareft, in fo far as to quiet
him, he has no reafon to reje6t the word, or queftion it for
want of evidence, but may be, and ordinarily believers are ex-
ercifed in complaints of their own darknefs, as the caule of
their not difcerning God in his word : Vittum efl in organo^
there is no fault in the word, but in the difcerning power. The
argument, if it be urged with refpecl to fuch a cafe as this,
would prove that there is no light in the fun.

2. The Lord's people, through the power of corruption,
and force of temptation, are often negligent and inadvertent,
and do not apply their minds, nor incline their hearts unto the
v/ord, with the attention neceifary to difcern the evidence of
God in the word ; and as a punilhmcnt of tliis, God withdraws,
and leaves their minds under the darknefs they are hereby caft
into, and then when God palTes by before, or on the right ox:
left handy and worketh round about them, they cannot perceive
Jiim. If we turn our back to the light, ilmt our eyes, or will
not be at pains to remove motes, or humours that cbilrufl our
fight, no wonder we do not difcern the light. When we have
idols in our hearts and eyes, no wonder v/e fee not God. If
we lay not afide the filthinefs of our hearts, we cannot receivs
the ingrafted zcord, that is able to favc our fouls^ in a due
manner*

O.. Air

452 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

3; Although the whole fcriptures come from God, sre his
word, yet every propofjtlon contained in them, as it is a pro-
pofition in itielf, expreffive of luch a particular purpole or
thoug;ht, is not his word : for God tells us, men's v/ords, and
the devil's words. Now though God fpeaks them in fo far as
to teach us that they are fuch pcrfon's w^ords, yet the propofi-
tians in themfelves are not to be received with faith ; but we
are only to ailent to this upon the authority of God, that they
faid {o and fo ; not always that thefe are true ; for oftentimes
in tlieinfelves they are faife and pernicious. Now, evidence as
to any more than the truth of God in the hiftorical narration of
theni, is not to be expected, nor are the fcriptures to be im-
peached for the want of it,

4. Although every divine truth which God fpeaks, has equal
authority, and fufficient evidence, yet every fcriptuie trutii has
not a beaming evidence, equally great, clear and afietling.
The fcripture is like the heaven, another piece of divine work-
inaolhip. It is full of Oars, every one of thefe has light fufhcient
to anfwerits own particular u(q for which it was defigned, and
to falisfy the difcerning and attentive beholder, that it is light;
but yet every one gives not a light equally clear, great, glorious,
2fie£iing and, powerful : T/iere is one glory of the fun, another of
ths moon, another of ihejlars : and one flar e.xcelkth another in
glory; and fonietinies the greatell light, if li is at the greateft dif-
ilance, like the fixed fiars, affect us lefs,and llune lefs dear to us,
ihun weaker lights, which, like the moon, are nearer. In the
icripture there are propofitions which tell us thinf^s,Mhich though
they arc in their own place and proper circumtlances, ufeful to
them, for whom they are pavticuhtrly defigned, and to their
proper fcope ; yet they are comparatively of lefs importance to
us, as acquainting us with thinf;!-; of lefs confiderable natures
and ufe to us, and which lie not lb far out cf our reach, being
in fomc meafure known, or knowable without divine revela-
tion, though it was necelTary, that in order to their particular \.\(q
to us in our walk with God, they fhould be better fecured, and
oiFcrcd U3 upon the faith of the divine tefumouy. Again, there
are other propofitions, wliic'n hold forth to us truths in their own
nature of more importance, that lie iuriher out of our reach,
being neither knovv/n, nor indeed knowable by us, without di-
vine revelation ; and which in our pi-efent cafes and circum-
flances are more nearly fuited to our cafe, and wherein there-
fore our prefent concernment doth more diredly appear to be

inrercHeJ

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 453

i^iterefted, and which therefore imprefs us with, and leave in us
effecls more lafting and dilcernible. Now it rrjuft be allowed,
tliat the truths of this iaft fort have an evidence more bright,
great, afFe6\iiig and fenfible, than thofe of the former fort.

5.. Hereon fundry fubordinate obfervations offer themfelves,
which are of the greatefl: importance for clearing the difliculty
under confulcration, i. Truths in fcripture, or propofnions ac-
quainting U5 with thini^^s, otherwife in fome refpe(^ within our
reach, and only vouched by God in order to the ftability of
pur faith in them, (in fo far as we are in pra6\ice obliged to
lay weight on them) and to give us, not fo much fatisfa6tioa
as to their truth abfolutely, as fome additional fecurity about
thpm ; ihefe cannot be fuppofed fo difcernibly to aile<5l our
minds, as truths of another nature, in as much as this additional
evidence is more diihcult to diflinguiih .from the evidence we
have otherwife for them. Befides that, God feeing that we are
not fo hard to be induced to a belief of them, or fo liable to
temptations that may fhake our faith, fees it not meet to fiamp
fuch bright, lively and affe6iing impreflions of hiinfelf on
them : for it is unworthy of him to do any thing in vain.
2. On the other hand, thefe propofitions which difclefe the fe-
cret purpofes, or knowledge of God, and things hid in it, that
lie witlihi the reach of no mortal, or perhaps created under-
(ianding, wiihout revelation, raufi make a more vivid and live-
ly impreffion on the mind, as illuminating it with the know-
ledge of things, whereto it was, and by its own reach forever
rnuil remain a flranger. 3, In like manner truths, wherein
our eternal falvatiqn, or prefent relief from incumbent trou-
ble, is directly concerned, do more forcibly affe6l, and have
a more powerful influence, than thofe which lie more remote
from our prefent ufe, of how great advantage foever in their
proper place they may be. The moon, which points out
my way in the night, guides me, and faves me from Jcfing
myfelforway, at that time affe61s me more than the light of
the fun, which I have formerly feen, but do not now behold ;
though the moon comparatively has no light, and borrows that
which it hath from the fun. In like manner, truths in them-
felves of lefs importance, and which derive all their glory
from thofe that are more important, yet, v/hen they fuit my
prefenl cafe, affeds me more, and their evidence appears grea-
ter. Every thing is beautiful in its feafon. That there is fuch a
city as Jerufaiem, or that there was fuch a one, the fcripture

tells

454 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

tells us. Of this we are otherwife informed, and are not like-
ly to be tempted as to its truth : this however is told us in the
word, and therefore we are to receive it on the teftimony of the
word ; but the faiih of it is not fo di^Hcult, on accounts men-
tioned ; it is not told but with refpecl to fome particular fcope,
and we have onlv an additional fecurity about it. Hereon our
minds are not fo illuminated, influenced, and afFeiled with the
difcovery, as when God tells us, he was in Chrift reconciling
the world to himfdif. The difcovery of this liiis us with a fenfe
of the glory oj God^ hitherto unknown, and that lay far out
of the reach of vulo;ar eyes, or any mortal to difcover, without
divine revelation. And therefore the difcovery ailcCts the more.
Again, I atn perplexed about through-bearing in fome parti-
cular i^rait ; a promife of grace to help in it, though it is of
lefs importance than the forementioned difcovery of reconcilia-
tion, and has no eHicacy, light or glory, fave what it derives
from the former, yet coming in the feafon wherein I am whol-
ly exercifed about it, and the cafe whereto it relates, it aifecis
me more. 4. Where the fame truth is at the fame timedifcovered
by different lights, it is not eafy for perfons, if not very dif-
cerning and attentive, to underftand the diflin6t and particular
influence of the feveral lights ; fuch as thai of natural light, hu-
man teftimony, and revelation ; and yet each of them have
iheir own particular ufe, which upon its extindion would ap-
pear by the de(e6i v/e would feel.

6. With refped to truths of high importance, otherwife un-
known, which affeil our minds with the enriching light of
things, by us formerly not known or knowable, and which by
their fuitablcnefs to prefcnt circumflances, or exercife, do more
iirongly affetl with a fenfe of the divine authority, and illumi-
nate the mind, there is no difficulty, fave in the cafes afJerwards
to be taken notice of, or the like.

7. As to thefe truths and fcripture propofttlons which relate
to things not fo remote from our apprehenfions, or are not fo
fnitable to our circumRances, at prefent, or difcover things of
lefs importance to us, it is owned, that even real Chrillians who
have faith, or a fpitiliiil difcerning, for ordinary, are not, upon
hearing or reading them, flruck or ailed d with io fenfible,
clear and alfedling evidence of God, as they are in other fcrip-
tares of a diftercnt nature and relation, which arifes from the
nature oC the truths in ihemfelves, the manner and defign of
God in the delivery, our prefent circumflances, the weaknefs

and

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 455

tjnd imperfe6ilon of our faith, the incidental indifpofitions-we
are under, and other caufes which may be eaiily colle^fted from
what has been formerjy hinted in the preceding obfervaticns.

8. All this, notwilhftanding the lead confiderablc of thefe
truths, has a fufficient evidence of the divine authority, that is,
fuch an evidence as anfwers the defign of God in them, and is
able to determine the believer's affent, and oblige him to obey or
fubmit, and is every way fuitable to the weight that is to be laid
©n them, with refpe6^ to the fcope they are mentioned for, and
importance of the matter ; which though at all times it is not
equally difcernible, for the reafons above-mentioned, or others
of an alike nature ; yet in its proper feafon it is obferved by
judicious, obferving, and refle6ling Chriflians. As for inftance,
when any of thefe truths, of the lead apparent importance, are
queftioned by Satan or men, then the authority of God is felt to
have that influence and awe upon the confciences of believers, as
wiJl not allow them to part with the leafi hoof or fnred of divine
truth, and. will make them maugre all oppcfilion, cleave to it,
though it fhould coft them their life. Likewife when the Spirit
of God is to apply thefe truths to the particular fcope at which
he aimed in ailerting them in the book of Gcd, then not only
have they fuch evidence as influences affent and adherence? but
emboldens the foul to lay that ftrefs on thera, which the cafe
doth require.

9. Whereas neither our prefent imperfe6\ date and capacities,
the nature of the things, nor other circumftances, allow of an evi-
dence equally clear and great as in other truths, the wifdom and
goodnefs of God, in confideration of this, to prevent the ibaking,
or at leaft failing of our faith, have as ro thefe provided many
ways for our fecurity : as, i. Though in the particular pafl'ages,
fuch evidence (bines not in themfelves apart, yet there often ap-
pears a beaming light, when they are prefented in reference to
the fcope intended by God, 2. Other palTages are joined with
them, placed near them, and related to them, which have a fur-
ther evidence of God, and though we cannot difcern them when
they are looked at ab(lra6ily, yet when we look to them in re-
lation to thefe, on which they hang, i^nd to which they are
connected, we are fatisfied. And 1 conceive there may be an
eye to this, in dropping doOrinal paflages, and inferting them
in fcripture hiftory. 3. This objection principally refpe«5^s tlie
Old Tedament ; as to the divine authority of which we are par-
ticularly fecurcji by plain and evident teftimonies in the New.

4. Some-

^r/j , AN ESSAY CONCERNING

4. Sornetimes with fach truths there «re dire£\ ancrtions o^ (he
Lord's ipeaking of them joined ; of which there are many in~
fiarices in the books of Mofes, wherein it is exprefsly dcciared,
tliat what was then enjoined, was by ihe particular command of
God.* 5, Believers for ordinary, being, in the reading of the
-xvord of God, made fenfible of liis authority, will not be eaiily
brought to admit of any fufpicion, that a book wherein God
iliews hii.mfelf fo evidently concerned , and owns, as to the bulk,
to be from him, is or can by him be allowed to be in other
places filled up with propofitions, or matters of a coarfer alloy :
And therefore they will rather queflion themfelves, and their
own ignornace, than impeach the divinity cf the fcriptures on
this account.

IG. Though no faulty obfcurity is chargeable on the fcrip-
tures, (as much of thcnj as in prefent circumdances is of ab-
fclute neceffity to believers, in order to their acceptable walk-
ing v.'ith God, being clearly revealed) yet there are many
truths not underfiood by all, nor perhaps by any, therein in-
ferred, to leave room for the diligence, trial of the faith of
Chriftians, their progrefs in knowledge, and other wife ends.
Now, till in the ule of sppointed means, the Spirit of God open
to us the meaning of thefe fcriptures, we cannot perceive the
light and.power that is in them: but vvhenever he opens thefe
fcriptures, that fame light that difcoi'ers the naeaning, will not
fail to alTedi, afid make our hearts burn within us, with the
fenfe of divine light, authority and powder. Of this the expe-
rience of the people of God, as fhey grow in knowledge, fur-
niOies them daily with new inflances, and therefore they do
not Oumble at the want of the prefent fenfe of this light, but are
quickened to diligence, excited to frequent cries for opening of
their eyes, that they may underhand the wonders, that by tlie
knowledge of other parts of the word they are iridijced to be-
lieve couched in thefe parts, which yet they know not.

II. As has been bcfciie more than ipfmuated, there are, in
fcripture, truths defigncd for, and fuited to difFerent perfcr.s,
in ditrerent circumftances ; the book of God being dcfigned for
the life of the whole church, and all in it, in all fiations, re-
lations, cafes, temptations and difterent circumUances, in which
any are, have been in, or may be in. Now when God fpcaks
to one, what he fays cannot be fo afleclipg to another, no
wife in the fame or 'like cafe ; though yet he may knew fome-

what

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 457

v.bat of the Lord's voice in it. And the fame is to be fald as
to the fame perfon, with rerpe6l to different cafes.

12. It mud be ilill minded, that though every part of fcrip-
ture has, in it proper place and degree, a fufficient evidence of
the divine authority, yet the a6iual difcerning of it depends ve-
ry much upon the prefent ftate of the difcerning power or faith
of the Chriilian, v^'hich difccrns it or not, or difcerns it mors
or lefs clearly, as it is ftronger or weaker, more free from ac-
cidental indifpofiticns, outward temptations, or more affe6\ed
by them. And the fame is to be faid, as to its being more or
lefs intently and ofderly applied to the obfervation of the evi-
dence or God in the word.

13. Yet whereas they, who are once renewed, do continue ftill
children of the light, and have a fpiritual capacity of difcerning
the Lord's voice from that o-i-a. flranger, they do for ordinary, in
the fcriptur^s, find the authority o{ God evidencing itfelf fuita-
bly to the particular exigence of their particular cafes, where the
truths that occur are not fuch wherein their prefent faith or pra6^ice
is immediately affeded ; or where the truths are fuch as to which,
in iheir own abftra6l nature, no more is required fave a bare af-
fent,they being only inferted v^ith refpe6t to fome other particular
fcope,where the truths are not prefenily affaulted, where they are
not immediately called to hazard much upon them, or in other the
liiie cafes, they are indeed lefs afle6ied ; but one way or other^
from one thing or another, as much of God fhines in them as
is fufficient to engage to a ptefent adherence, and fome becom-
ing reverence as to the oracles of God, which may in their fea-
fon manifert their ufefulnefs to us, and do at prefent manifeft it
to others. And where tru(hs are of a different nature and im-
portance, and fuit prelent neceffities, and require more diftinf^
a6lings of faith or obedience, and we are called to lay more
ftrefs on them ; in that cafe the evidence of God ihincs more
brightly. And fcarce ever will a difcerning and attentive
Chridian, who is not grievoufly iadifpofed by fome cafual dif-
order, read the fcriptures, or any confiderabie part of them,
but fome where or other, in the fcope or particular words, and
propofitions, or their contexture, fome light will fhine in upon
the foul, enforcing a conviction. That God is in it of a truth,

14. V/hen the faith of the Lord's people is alfaulted as to
the truth o^ the uord ; when in difficult cafes and duties they
are called to lay much ftrefs upon the word, and hazard as '^
v/ere their all ', when they are dirireffed with particular and

^ I 1 violent

458 AN ESSAY COi\CERNlNG

violent ternp;jtations, and need comfort ; when under fpiritual
decays, and God deiigns to leilore them ; wlicn newly brous^ht
in, and need to be confirmed ; when they are hiin)ble and dili-
gent, and the liOrd deiigns to reward them gracioufjy, and en-^
courage them to go on ; when difficulted to find duty, and
waiting on the Lord for light, in cafes of more than ufual im-
portance ; when the Lord has a mind to carry on an}^ to peculiar
degrees of holinefi' and grace, and employ them in fpeciaj fer-
vices ; and, in a word, wherever any extraordinary exigence
requires, then the Lord opens his people's ears, removes what
intercepts the di(coveries of his mind, fixes th.cir ear to hear,
and fpeaks the word diflin£\iy, powerfully and fvvectly to the
foul, and gives them in and by it, fuch a taOe of his goodnefs,
wifdom, and power, and experience of his authority in the
word, and his gracious defign and hand in its application at
pret'ent, as fills the foul with the riches and full ajfurance of
faith, peace, joy, and fiedfaflnefs in believing.

Prop. Xll, ** Whereas there are dilTerent readings of par-
" ticular places in ancient copies, and places wrong tranfiated.
** in ourverfions, it may be pretended, that we are, or may be
" impofed upon, and affent to truths, or rather to propofitionSj
*' not of a divine original, cafually crept into our copies of
*' the original, or tranfiation. In anfwer hereto, the forego-
*' ing ground of faiih lays.a fufhcient bottom for the fatisfa^iion
" of Chriflians, in \o far as their cafe and particular tcmptati-
** ons require."

To clear tl-is a liitle, I iliall offer the enfuing remaiks :

1. Where llie authority of God evidences itfelf in the way
above explained, and confirmed to the mind, believers have a
fiable and fare foundation for their faith, whether they ufe
tranjlaiions or the originals ; thorjgh it mud be allowed, where
perlons are cripjhie of it, the originals are mofl fatisfying.
And this is plainly the cafe, as all real Chriflians from certain
experience know, as to all the truths of the grcatefl importance,
aud whereon our fail'n or obedience are mere immediately or
dlrecfly concerned : fo that as to thefe there is no room left ^ot
this obje6Uon.

2. The witdom of God iias fo carefiiliy provided for the fe-
curity and ftability of our faith, as to particular truths of any
confiderable importance, againft pretences of this, or an alike
ilaune, that oar failii rclls not upon the evidence of one fingle

tcftimony

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 459

reftimony, but fuch truths upon a variety of occafions arc often
repeated, and our faith leans upan thern, not only as thus fre-
quently repeated, but cleared and confirmed by th«?ir connexion
to o'her truths which infer them, and to the whole analogy of
faith, or current of the fcriptures, with refpc6l to that which is
the principal defign of God. So that we are in no hazard of be-
ing deprived of any one truth, of any conllderabie influence, in
faith or pra6fice, by pretended corruptions, or wrong tranllations.
The famous Dr. Owen, who had confidered the whole various
readings, and well knew the failures of particular tranflations,
obferves, That were all the various readings, added to the woril
and moft faulty tranflation, the church of God would not fuQain
by it the lofs of one important truth.

3. Where any perfon is particularly concerned to be fatis-
fied which is the right reading of any particular palTage, and
how it ought to be tranflated, they may, by the help of the
minifters of the gofpel, fuch of them as are particularly fitted
with fkill in fuch matters, and by the endeavours of learned
men, who have particularly confidered every one of thefe paf-
fages, in a humble dependence on God for the blefling of thefe
means, (tvhich the wife God has multiplied, fince diiHcultles
of this fort begun to create any trouble to the faith of his peo-
ple) by thefe means I fay, joined with an eye to the Lord,
they may come to be particularly fatisfied. If any man will
do his willf he /hall know the do^rine, luhether it is oj God.

4. Where there is not accefs to thefe means, which will not
readily happen to perfons called to fuch exercife, (which rarely
befalls the ordinary fort of Chriflians) yet the Lord can eafily
relieve the perfon thus exercifed, by evidencing his authority to
the confcience in a fatisfying light, or by enabling him to wait
for light until the folution comes, or by removing the temptation,
when it becomes too ftrong, or by leading him to refi in the
particular truth, as fecured by other palTages not queitioned,
or by fome fuch like way.

5. The difficulty as to tranflations Is really of lefs importance;
and as to the other about pretended corruptions, ordinary Chrif-
lians, whofe confciences are daily afiPe^led with the evicience of
God's authority in the word, and his owning it as his word, fpeak-
ing by it to them, and conveying divine influences of light, life
and comfort, will not fear or entertain any fufpicion fo unwor-
thy of God, as that he could allow the word he thus owns, under
a pretence of his authority, to impofe on them affertions of hu-
man

46o AN ESSAY CONCERNING

man extracl, and of any ill confequence to their faith or obe-
dience.

6. I fliall only Tub join this one obfervatlon, That enemies
gain more by propofmg thefe pretended corruphons in cumulo* ,
and In fuch a bulky way, as to affright Chriftians who are ca-
pable of fuch obje6tions, than by infiftng upon any particular
one, and attempts to prove them of equal authority with the
reading retained in the approved originals. Their unfuccefsful-
ncfs in endeavours of this laft fort difcovers, that there is really
nothing of weight in that fo much ooifed obje6\ion about various
readings : for if there were any fuch readings as could really
make any conuderable alteration, and were fupported with any
authority able to cope with the received readings, why do they
not produce thefe? Others are of no confideration ; thefe only
are to be regarded : and of this fort there are but very few thaj
the moft impudent dare pretend ; and thefe few have been dif-
proved and dlfallov^^ed by pcrfons of equal capacity and learn-
ing. But to leave this, which is above the ordinary Jort of
Chriflians, the Lord's people, to whom he has evidenced his
own authority, in the way above mentioned, will be moved with
none of thefe things. They will not forego the word, but re-
tain it as their life, and pay lefpcd to it as the word of God ;
and they have good reafon to do fo=

I iliall now obferve hence,

1. How juilly divine faith maybe faid to be infallible, as
fiandinp: on an infallible ground, the faithfulnefs and truth of
God in the word. Through daikncfs we may fometimcs not
difccrn, through negligence not obferve, or through the force
of temptations interpofmg betwixt us and it, we may lofe
fight of the evidence of this authority ; and fo our faith may
fhake or fail. But while it fixes on this, it cannot fail, though
wc may quit, or by violence be beat off"; the ground is firm, and
cannot fail, the fcripturcs cannot be broken.

2. Hence it is. That the meaneft and weakeA believers, who
know nothing of the props others have to fupport them, do cleave
as firmly to the word, run with all courage, 3ind as much cheer-
fulnefs, all hazards for it, to the lofs of whatever is dear to them,
life not excepted, as the mof^ judicious divine, and offentin>es
they are much more firm. This is upon no other grounds
accountable. This reafon of faith is as mucli expofed to them
33 to the mofl learned.

3. All
* <« lu bulk.'"

THE REASON OF TRUE FAITH. 461

o. All objections arlfing againft this ground of faith ^ will be
eafily folved, if" we confider, i. That the fcriptures are a relief
provided by fovereign grace, for thofe of the race of fallen
iTian, to v/hcrr- God defigns iTiCrcy, and fo God was not obli-
ged to adjud it in all refpe6^s to the natural capacities of men in
their prefent Oate, but it was meet that the word tliould be
fo writ, that room lliould be left for the difcoveries of the fove-
reignty of grace, and the other means God defigned to make
vjfe of in fubferviency to the word. It was not meet nor necef-
fary that all (hould be fo propofed, as to lie open to men without
the affillance of the Spirit, and without the miniftry of the word.
2. The ward was not defigned alone to conducf us, but God
has given the Spirit with the word, who reaches us in and by
it, as he fees meet. 3. The word is defigned to be a rule to
all ages, and therefore it was not meet or neceiTary, that what
concerns perfons in one age fhould be equally expofed in its
meaning unto other perfons, who lived in a different time. It
is fufiicient, that in every age, what concerns that time lie fo
open, that in the ufe of the means of God's appointment, they
may reach that wherein they are concerned. 4. The word
was defigned for perfons of different fiations, capacities and ca-
fes, who ought to reft fatisfied in the obvious difcoveries of
what concerns them, in their own particular circumftances, and
is required to be believed and obeyed, more particularly in a
way of duty, of them, though they cannot fee fo clearly what
belongs to others in different circumftances. 5. God has not
fyftematically and feparately difcourfed all particular cafes un-
der diftin6t heads ; but to leave room for the condu6t of the
Spirit, for exciting the diligence of Chriftians to iludy the whole
fcriptures, and for other reafons obvious to infinite wifdom,
he has digefted them in a method, more congruous to thefe
wife ends. 6. The Lord defigning the exercife of the faith of
his own, and to humble them, and to drive them to a depen-
dence on himfelf, and to punifh the wicked, and give them who
will ftumble at the ways of God fomewhat to break their neck
on, he has digefted them fo, as that there maybe occaiions, thou<>h
always without fault on God's part, for all thofe ends : Wifdom
-will be jujiified of her children, and to fome he /peaks in para-
kUs, that fdeing they may not fee»

FINIS.

1 N D

X

OF THE

Authors and Books quoted in the preceding TForL

A

IKENHEAD's Speech.
Alcoran.

Amyrauld de Religionibus.
A.riilotIe's Ethicks.
Auguft. de Civiiate Dei.

Bayle's great Hift. and Crit,

Didion.
Baxter's Animad. on Herberti

. De Veritate.

. ■ Reafon's for Chriftian

Religion.
■ More Reafons for Chrif-

tian Religion.
Becconfal on the Law of Nature.
Blount's Oracles of Reafon.

Religio Laici.

Boyle's Excellency of Theology

beyond Natural Philofcphy.
Burnet on the Thirty-Nioe Ar.
tides.

Cxht de Bello Gallico.
Cicero's Tufculan Qnefiions.

De iSiatura Deorunu

De Lisibus.

De Amicitia.

Clarkfon's pradticil Divinity of

the Pa pi lis.
Claudian,

Clementis Alexandrina Stromata.
Clerk's (Le) Parrhafiana,

■ Comput. Hiitor^

Collin's Difcoarfes de Aniir^abus

Paganorum.

Dacier's Plato.
Deift's Manuel.
Difcourfe on Moral Virtue, and

its Difference from Grace.
Dryden's Hind and Panther.

Epidetus.

Fergufon's Enquiry into Moral
Virtue.

Gale's Court of the Gentiles*
Growth of Deifm,

Heid. (Abrah.) de Origine Er-

roris,
Herbert de Veritate.

De P.elig. Gent.

Religio Laici.

Hornbeck de Converfione Gen-

tilium.
Hieroclis Carmina Aurea.
Hobb's Leviathan.
Howe's Living Temple.
Humphrey's Peaceable Difqui-

fuioRs.

Jamblichus de Vita Pylhag.
Jefuits Morals.

Lacrtius (Diog.) de Vitis Philo-

fophorum.
Letter to the Deifts.

Limbarch's Conference u:

reiius the Jew.
Locke on Human Ur.aeri

o.

464

Locke's Reafonablenefs of Chrif-
tianlty,

Maximas Tyrius.

Niccl's Conference with a The-

ill.
Kye (Stephen) on natural and

revcvlled Religion.

Ovid, de Ponto.

Pvletaroorph.

Owen on the Sabbath.

Theologuni,

on the Hebrews,

. De Juftiiia Vindicate

Outramus de Sacrificiis.

Parker's (Sam.) Defence of Ec-

clefiaiiical Polity.
Prudentius (Aurelius).
PufiendoifF's Introduction* to the

liiilory of Europe,

Refleriicns on the Growth of

Deifn^.
Remonflrant. Apologia,
Rivet on Hofea.
Rufhworth's HiHor. CoUei^sons.

Seneca's Epift.

De Ira,

De Providentia.

Siniplicius in Epidetum.
Spinoza's Eihicks,
Stanley's Lives,
Sdliingfleet's Origines Sacrai.

^Tuckney's (Anth.) Sermons-
Turretine.

Wiifon's Scripture Interpreter.
Wolfelf)-'s (bir Charles) Scrip*

ture Belief.
Videllii Arcana Arminianifmi.

And his Rejoinder,
Videiius Rapfodus,

r^^^^'^

n.